### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT A ugu st 26 , 2 004 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK

Honora ble Norma

n H. Stahl, United States Circuit J udg e for the Fir st Circuit, sit ting by * desig nation. [PUBLIS H]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 03- 1030 4

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 2- 20 37 8 C R-J AL UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee,
ve rs us RIGOBERTO CARRASCO, BIENVENITO JUAN RUIZ, D ef en dants -Appe llants .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeals fr om

the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (A ug us t 26, 200 4) Be fo re BL A CK , BA RKE T T and S T A H L , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. * PE R CU RIA M:Ruiz was c harg ed with, and c onvicted by a jury of, attempt to possess five kilog rams or 1 mor e of c oc a ine . T he jud g me nt, ho we ve r, state s th at Ru iz w a s c onvic te d o f p os se ssi on wi th intent to dist ribute five kilog rams or more of coc aine. Althoug h Ruiz did not raise this issue, we rema nd his case f

or the sole pur

pose of pe rmitting the district cour t to amend the judg ment ag ainst him to reflec t acc urate ly the offe nses of c onviction.

2 A ft er aj ur y tr ia l, Appe llant R igo be rt o C ar ra sc o w as c onvi ct ed

of a tte m pt t o poss ess with intent to di stribute five kilog ram s or m ore of coca ine and sentenced to 2 40 m onths’ im

pr iso nm en t. Appe llant B ie nve nit o R uiz w as c onvi ct ed

of
co nspi ra cy

to poss es s w ithint en t t o di str ibu te f ive kil ogr am s or

m or e of c oc ai ne and attem pt to po ssess with intent to distribu te five kilogram s or m ore of coca ine, 1
an d se nte nc ed

to lif e im pr iso nm en t. Appe llants appe al the ir c onvi ct ion s and
se nte nc es . W e re ve rs e Carr as co ’ s c onvi ct ion , but a ff irm Ru iz ’ s c onvi ct ionand
se nte nc e ex ce pt i nsof

ar a s w e re m an d f

or the dis tr ic t c ourt t o am en d th e j udgm en t to r ef le ct a cc ur at el y

Ru iz ’ s of

fe nse s of c onvi ct ion
. I. BACKGROUND T h e c h a r g e s a g a i n s tAp p e l l a n tC a rr a s c o an dAp p e l l a n tR u i z s t e m f r o m a dr ug transa ct ionse t up by

ac onf ide nti al inf

orm an t, Mari a N uñe z. I n c oope ratio n wit h t he Drug Enfo rcem en t Ag en cy (DEA), Nuñ ez co nt act edhe r br ot he r-i n- la w, c o d e f e n d a n tR o d r i g u e z , t o p r o p o s e th e th e f to f 4 0 k i l o g r a ms o f

c o c a i n e f r o m a wom an in Miam i. R odriguez eventuallyagree d, and the D EAarr anged for a
w a r e h o u s e t o s e rv e a s th e l o c a t i o n f o r th e r o b b e ry.3

O n Apr il 17, 200 2, Ro dr igu ez and c ode fe ndant C eb al los m et N uñe z at the
warehouse, where D EAagents arre sted them
. Rodriguez and Ceballos were
carry in g weapo ns . Ro dr igu ez im

m ed ia te ly a gr ee d to c oope rate w ithlawe nf or ce m en t of

fi ci al s by tel ep ho ni ng th e in di vi du al s h e p la nn edto ha ve sel l t he co cai ne forhi m . Rodriguez called Appellant Carrasco, who congratulated Rodriguez. R odriguez asked Carr asco to pick up the drugs and brin g m oney with him
. Carr asco responded th at the m oney wa s squared away . Carr asco later arrived to m eet Ro dr igu ez , and D E A a ge nts arr es te d hi m . C ar ra sc o w ai ve d hi s r igh ts and s ai d he knew people in the drug bu siness and would be able to assist the DE A. Car rasco al so st at edhe ha d g on e to m eetRo dr ig ue z so he co ul d “ do work ” fo r Ro dr ig ue z. Rodriguez also called codefendant Sierr a and left a m essage for him
. When the D E A a ge nts br ough t R odr igu ez to pr iso n, the y gave Ro dr igu ez ’ s c el l ph one to Nuñ ez. Nuñ ez s po ke to Sie rra abo ut th e p ur po rte d 4 0 k il og ram s o f co cai ne . O nc e, w he n N uñe z ca lle d S ie rr a, Appe llant R uiz answ er ed

the pho ne and ide nti fi ed him se lf a s “ Juanit o, ” Si er

ra ’ s f ri en d. A ft er

af ewdis cu ssi ons w ith Si erra , Nuñ ez arran ge d a m eet in g wi th hi m so Sie rra c ou ldex am in e th e co cai ne . Whe n a ske d by

N uñe z w he the r he w oul d be arr ivi ng at the m ee tin g w ithAppe llant Ru iz on ly, Si erra res po nd edin th e aff irmativ e.Rodrigue z testi fied at trial that he had a sked Appe llant Carra sco to participate in the 1 robber y , but Carra sco had de clined and instea d expressed an inter est in selling the stolen c ocaine
. 4 Sierr a and Appellant Ruiz ar rived at the appointed ti m e and place to m eet
w ithN uñe z. S ie rr a an d R uiz got out of the c ar in w hic h th ey

ha d arr ive d and ta lke d w ithN uñe z out sid e. N uñe z dis cu sse d ho wm uc h c oc ai ne she ha d and, when Sie rra asked about th e quality of the cocaine, Nuñez r espond ed that it was good
. A ft er

S ie rr a state d th e co ca ine w oul d se ll, and S ie rr a an d Appe llant R uiz tol d N uñe z that no oth er s w er e co m ing to the m ee tin g, a ge nts arr es te d S ie rr a an d Ru iz
. At tria l, Appellant Carrasco testified on his own behalf and denied ever de al ing dr

ugs w ithRo dr igu ez . C ar ra sc o te sti fi ed

that w he n R odr igu ez a ske d hi m to t ak e part

in a dr ug d ea l, he r ef

use d. C ar

ra sc o te sti fi ed

that, a ft er

his 1
co nve rs at ionw ithRo dr igu ez , he le ar ne d R odr igu ez ha d be enusi ng dru gs, and o ut of c onc er n he ha d c ont ac te d R odr igu ez ’ s br oth er w ho s ai d he ha d be enloo kin g f or Ro dr igu ez f

or day s. C ar

ra sc o f urthe r te sti fi ed

he w en t t o m ee t R odr igu ez on the day of the ir arr es ts b ec au se he w an te d to f ind Ro dr igu ez and h el p hi m

w ithhis d r u g p r o b l e m. In re b u t t al , t h e G o v ern m en tp re s en t ed ev i d en ce o f A p p el l an tCa rr as co ’s prior invol vem ent in the drug trade. More specifically , the G overnm ent presented5

testim ony from Ceballos that, in 1989 o r 1990, Appellant Car rasco had a tire busin ess that served as a f ront for a drug operation. C eballos further testified that he (1) attended a m eeting at the busin ess about a drug ripoff, (2) purchased ounce
am ount s of

c oc ai ne f ro m Appe llant C ar

ra sc o ona t l ea st tw el ve oc ca sio ns, ( 3)
re ca lle d se ei ng Appe llant C ar ra sc o a ddi ng c utt ing a ge nts to dr ugs, and ( 4) c oul d
re ca ll at le as t thr ee oc ca sio ns o n w hic h he ha d se enCarr as co giv e m one y to Rodriguez in am ount s ranging from $200 0 to alm ost $5 000 for cocaine Rodriguez h ad fr o n t ed t o Ca rr as co . Wh en Ap p el l an tCa rr as co o b je ct ed t o Ce b al l o s ’s testim ony on Federal R

ule of E vidence 404(b) no tice grounds, the district court
ove rr ule d th e obj ec tio n. T he dis tr ic t c ourt i nit ia lly state d C eb al los ’ s te sti m ony wa s rebuttal and therefore did no t fall w ithin Rule 404(b). T he district court subs eque ntl y

r ule d th e ge ne ra liz ed

not ic e pr ev iou sly

giv enby the G ove rn m en t
w as suf fi ci en t t o satis fy

the Ru le 404 (b ) not ic e re qui re m en t. A t the c los e of the G ove rn m en t’ s r eb utt al c as e, Carr as co m ove d to r et ak e the stand t o r eb ut Ce ba llo s’ s te sti m ony . T he dis tr ic t c ourt de nie d C ar ra sc o’ s m oti on. Appellant Ruiz also testified on his o wn behalf at trial. He told th e j ury that, on the day

of his arr es t, he ha d be enw ithS ie rr a be ca use S ie rr a w as aS an te ri a pr ie st . Rui z te st ifi edhe was t ry in g t o m ak e h im se lf a sai nt in th e San te ria rel ig io n. Ruiz further te stified that he had accom panied Sierra

to the m eeting with Nuñez6

be ca use S ie rr a ha d a ske d hi m to go w ithhim

to he lp s om eo ne in tr oubl e, not because he intended to ob tain drugs. Ruiz further testified that when he re alized
som ethin g su spi ci ous w as goi ng o n, he a tte m pte d ph y sic al ly

to dis tanc e him se lf fro m Sie rra a nd Nuñ ez. Inr eb utt al , the G ove rn m en t pr es en te d te sti m ony f ro m Ce ba llo s r eg ar din g a conversation he had with Appellant Ruiz in prison
. Ceballos testified that Appellant Ruiz said he had gone with Sierr a to pick up th e cocaine and had ended up i n alot

of tr oubl e. C eb al los te sti fi ed Appe llant R

uiz sa id h e w as goi ng t o attr ibu te any

state m en ts h e m igh t have m ad e w hil e he w as w ithS ie rr a to the San te ria rel ig io n. T he j ur y c onvi ct ed

Appe llant C ar

ra sc o onthe onl y

c harg e ag ai nst him : atte m

pt t o po sse ss w ithint en t t o di str ibu te f ive kil ogr am s or

m or e of
co ca ine
. T he j ur

y c onvi ct ed

Appe llant R

uiz on b othc ount s a ga ins t him : c onsp ir ac y

to poss es s w ithint en t t o di str ibute f ive kil ogr am s or

m or e of
co ca ine and atte m

pt t o po sse ss w ithint en t t o di str ibu te f ive kil ogr am s or

m or e of
co ca ine
. C ar

ra sc o and R

uiz appe al the ir

c onvi ct ion s and s en te nc es .7 II. DISCUSS ION A. Appellant Carra sco Appe llant C ar

ra sc o c ont en ds the dis tr ic t c ourt sh oul d have gr an te d a
m istri al w he n th e G ove rn m en t pr es en te d te sti m ony f ro m A ndr es Ce ba llo s im pli catin g C ar

ra sc o inspe ci fi c pr ior

a ct s of dr ug d ea lin g w ith out

pr ovi din g notice as required under Feder al Rule of E vidence 404(b). Carrasc o further
co nte nds the dis tr ic t c ourt c om m itt ed r ev er sib le e rr or

w he n it r ef use d to pe rm it h i m t o t a k e th e s t a n di n s u rr e b u t t a l t o a d d r e s s C e b a l l o s ’s t e s t i mo n y. W e re view the district court’ s decisions as to the adm issib ility of evidence fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n. U nit ed Sta tes v . P er ez -T

osta , 36 F
. 3d 1 552, 156 0 ( 11th Ci r. 19 94 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d)
. Fe de ra l R ule of E vid en ce 404 (b ) pr ovi de s: (b) Ot he r C ri m es , Wr on gs, or A ct s. —Evidence of other crim es, wrongs, or acts is not adm issib le to prove the charac ter of a p e r s o n i n o r d e r

t o s h o wa c t i o n i n c o n f

o rmi t y th e r e w i t h
. I tmay, however, be adm issib le for other purposes, such as proof of m otive, oppo rtunity , intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity , or absence of m ist ak e or

a cc ide nt, pr ovi de d th at

upo n r eque st b y

the a cc use d, the pr ose cu tio n inac ri m ina l c as e sha ll pr ovi de r ea sona ble not ic e in advanc e of

tr ia l, or dur ing tr ia l i f the c ourt e xc use s pr etri al not ic e on good c au se sho w n, of

the ge ne ra l natur e of

any suc h e vid en ce it int en ds t o in tr oduc e at

tr ia l.Neither party ref ere nced the standingdiscovery order in its brief, but in reviewing the 2 re c or d w e no tic e d th e sta

nd ingdis c ov e ry

or de r s ig ne d b y

the ma g istra

te jud g e re g ard ingthe c a se a g a ins t Ca

rr a sc o s tate s th e “ Go ve rnme nt s ha ll a dv ise the de fe nd ant( s) of its int e nti on

to introduce dur ing its ca se in chief proof of evidenc e, pursua

nt to Rul e 404(b) , Fe dera l Rules of Evidence .” We re spectfully sug g est all such discove ry order s be modified to re flec t the require ments of Rule 404(b). 8 T he r ule r equir es “ the pr ose cu tio n to pr ovi de not ic e, r eg ar dle ss o f howit int en ds to u se the e xtr ins ic a ct

e vid en ce a t tri al , i. e. , dur ing it s c as e- in- ch ie f, f or i m p ea ch m en t , o r f

o r p o s s i b l e r eb u t t al .” Fe d . R . Ev i d . 4 0 4 (b ) a d v i s o ry co m m i t t ee ’s note to 19 91 am endm ents. T hus, the Governm ent was r equired to provid e notice of the pr ior ba d a ct s to w hic h C eb al los te sti fi ed in re but ta l. 2 Moreover, althoug h the Advisory Com m ittee N otes discus s Rule 404(b) as
co nta ini ng a

“ ge ne ra liz ed

not ic e pr ovi sio n, ” the pr ose cu tio n st ill m ust “ ap pr ise the defense of the genera l nature of the evidence of e xtrinsic acts.” Id
. T he Go v ern m en ti n i t i al l y g av e n o t i ce th at i tm i g h tu s e t h e f ac to f A p p el l an tCa rr as co ’s May 199 4 arr es t and s ubse que nt c onvi ct ionf or dr ug and f ir earm s of

fe nse s. T he Gov ern m en t s ub se qu en tl y ga ve no ti ce t ha t i t m ig ht in tro du ce ev id en ce o f two additio nal prior bad acts: (1) an instance ( at an unspecified tim e) when Rodriguez fronted m arij uana for sale to Appellant Carrasco, who eventually paid between $300 0 and $40 00 to Rod riguez for the drugs; and (2) an instance (a gain at an unsp ecified tim e) when codefendant Rodriguez, Appellant Carrasco, and anotherWe also note there is no alleg ation that this evidence was ne wly discovere d by

the 3 Go ve rnme nt d

ur ingthe c ours e of

tr ia l. 9 ind ivi dua l st ole f

or ei gn c ur

re nc y f ro m an of fi ce bui ldi ng i n M iam i and s old it f or $3 00 0 i n Un it edSta te s cu rren cy . Inr uli ng a dm iss ibl e the e vid en ce pe rt ai nin g to Appe llant C ar ra sc o’ s pa st dealings with Rodrigu ez, includin g “ evidence of past narcotics dealings where Ro dr igu ez ‘ fr ont ed ’ dr

ugs to C ar

ra sc o f or dis tr ibu tio n, ” the dis tr ic t c ourt he ld the
ev ide nc e to b e ine xtr ic ab ly int er tw ine d w iththe G ove rn m en t’ s pr oof of the
c h a r g e do f

f e n s e s an dth e r e f

o r e o u t s i d e th e r e a l m o f

R u l e 4 0 4 ( b )
. Ar g u ab l y, Ce ba llo s’ s te sti m ony

r eg ar din g tr an sa ct ion s be tw ee n Appe llant C ar ra sc o and Rodriguez m ight b e encom passed by the district court’ s inextricably intertwined
ru lin g. T he G ove rn m en t do es not , how ev er , poi nt t o any not ic e it ga ve to Appellant Carr asco that it m ight in troduce evidence of drug dealings between Ce ba llo s and C ar

ra sc o, or of Carr as co ’ s a lle ge d op er at ionof ati re bus ine ss a s a front for drug operations. W e theref ore find the district court’ s adm issio n of that 3 evidence wa s in error under Rule 404(b). W e next m ust cons ider w hether that
erro r was ha rm le ss . Se e P er ez -T osta , 36 F. 3d at 156 2 n.9 (11th Cir. 1994). T he pol ic y

be hin d th e Ru le 404 (b ) not ic e re qui re m en t i s “ to r ed uc e sur pr ise
an d pr om ote e ar ly

r es olu tio n onthe iss ue of a dm iss ibi lity . ” F ed
. R. E vid
. 404 (b )Be cause we r ever se Appe llant Carra sco’s c onviction on this ground, we do not consider 4 his oth e r a

rgume nts on

a pp e a l. 10 advisory com m ittee’ s note to 19 91 am endm ents. Carrasc o’ s defense at tria l wa s t h at h e h ad g o n e t o m ee tRo d ri g u ez b ec au s e h e w as co n ce rn ed ab o u tRo d ri g u ez ’s
re curr en t dr

ug p ro ble m . Mo re ove r, in te sti fy ing , Carr as co m ini m iz ed his pr ior
na rco ti cs in vo lv em en t. T he te sti m ony

r eg ar din g C ar

ra sc o’ s narc oti cs inv olv em en t, of w hic h th e G ove rn m en t f

ai le d to giv e the r equir ed Ru le 404 (b ) not ic e, w en t t o th e he ar t of Carr asco’ s defense, his intent
. The G overnm ent’ s failure to provide the required Ru le 404 (b ) not ic e the re fo re pr ej udi ce d C ar ra sc o’ s a bil ity to de fe nd h im se lf

. T he pr ej udi ce to Carr as co w as c om poun de d by

the f ac t tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t pe rm it Carr as co to re ope n hi s c as e to a ddr es s C eb al los ’ s te sti m ony . Mo re ove r, by its ow n a dm iss ionin a fi lin g w iththe dis tr ic t c ourt, the G ove rn m en t di d “ not have overwhelm ing evid ence of C arra sco’ s intent to com m it his charged offense.” W e co nc lud e the G ove rn m en t’ s f ai lur e to p ro vid e the r equir ed Ru le 404 (b ) not ic e w as not

harm le ss and r ev er se Carr as co ’ s c onvi ct ionand r em an d to the dis tr ic t c ourt f

or f urthe r pr oc ee din gs. 411

B. A ppe lla nt R uiz Appe llant R

uiz c ont en ds the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed in re fu sin g to giv e his p ro p o s ed at t emp ti n s t ru ct i o n . Attri al , R u i z a d o p t ed Ap p el l an tCa rr as co ’s
ar gum en t and r eque ste d th e dis tr ic t c ourt gi ve the f oll ow ing ins tr

uc tio n a s to the
a t t e mp tc h a r g e a g a i n s th i m:

A n a tte m pt r equir es pr oof

that the de fe ndant w as a ct ing w ith the state of m ind required for the com m issio n of the offense and w as engaged in cond uct that constit utes a substan tial step toward co m m iss ionof

the c ri m e. T o pr ove an il le ga l a tte m pt, the gove rn m en t m

ust sho wthat the de fe ndant h ad aspe ci fi c int en t t o engage in crim inal condu ct w hen he tooka substantial step to ward com m issio n of the offense. T o f ind that a sub stanti al ste p w as take n, y ou m ust de te rm ine that the defendant’ s objective a cts m ark the defe ndant’s conduct as cr im ina l so that the de fe ndant’ s a ct s a s aw hol e str ongl y c or ro bor at e the required culpability ; they m ust no t be equivocal. Asubst antial ste p to w ar d c om

ple tio n of ac ri m ina l of

fe nse , a s r equir ed

to show atte m pt, is som ethin g m or e than m er e pr ep ar at ion , but le ss than th e la st a ct ne ce ssary

be fo re the a ct

ua l c om m iss ionof

the sub stanti ve crim e. T he act m

ust be of such a nature that a re asonable obs erver viewing it in context could conclud e bey ond a reasonable doub t that it was u nd ert ak en in acco rd an ce wi th a de si gn to vi ol at e th e la w. (F ootnot es om itt ed ). T he dis tr ic t c ourt r ef use d to giv e the pr opos ed ins tr uc tio n, an d gave the f

oll ow ing ins tr

uc tio n in ste ad : Fo r y ou t o f

ind the de fe ndants gui lty

of atte m pti ng t o po sse ss co ca ine w iththe int en t t o di str ibu te , y ou m ust be c onvi nc ed

that the gove rn m en t ha s pr ove d e ac h of the f oll ow ing f

ac ts b ey ond a re as ona ble doubt.12 Fi rs t: T ha t the de fe ndant i nte nde d to pos se ss c oc ai ne w iththe in te nt to di st rib ut e it an d[ ,] Se co nd: T ha t the de fe ndant d id an a ct c onst itu tin g a subs tanti al ste p to w ar ds the c om m iss ionof

that c ri m e w hic h stro ngl y co rr obor at es the de fe ndant’ s c ri m ina l i nte nt. T he de fe ndant’ s a ct s take n a s aw hol e m ust str ongl y co rr obor at e the r equir ed

c ulp ab ili ty , the y

m ust not be e qui voc al
. W e re vie wadis tr ic t c ourt’ s r ef usa l t o gi ve ar eque ste d j ur y ins tr uc tio n f or ab us e o f di sc ret io n. U

nit ed Sta tes v . F

utr el l , 209 F . 3d 1 286, 128 8 ( 11th C ir
. 200 0) (c itatio n om itt ed ). Adis tr ic t c ourt’ s r ef usa l t o gi ve ar eque ste d in str uc tio n is
rev ers ib le erro r if

“ (1 ) th e req ue st edin st ru ct io n was a co rrec t s ta te m en t o f th e la w, (2 ) its sub j ec t m atte r w as not

sub stanti al ly

c ove re d by

oth er ins tr uc tio ns, and (3) its subjec t m atter dea lt with an issue in the trial court that was so im portant that failure to give it seriously im paired the defendant’ s ability to defend him self. ” United States v. Parad ies , 98 F. 3d 12 66, 1286 (11t h Cir. 1996 ) (c itation o m itted). T he onl y sub stanti ve dif

fe re nc e be tw ee n th e pr opos ed ins tr uc tio n and the ins tr uc tio n th e dis tr ic t c ourt gave to the j ur y is that the pr opos ed

ins tr uc tio n included a definitio n of a substantial st ep as “ som ething m ore than m ere pr ep ar at ion , but

le ss than th e la st a ct

ne ce ssary

be fo re the a ct

ua l c om m iss ionof the subs tantive crim e. ” G iven the nature of Appellant Ruiz’ s defense at tria l, thereAfter car efully consideringthe other a

rguments raised by

Appellant Ruiz on appeal, we 5 conclude they

are without merit and do not discuss them. See11th Cir. R. 36-1. 13 wa s no reversible err or because the district court’ s refusal to give the requested in st ru ct io n d idno t s eri ou sl y im pa ir Ap pe ll an t Ru iz ’s abi li ty to d efen d h im se lf. Appellant Ruiz w ent at the appointed ti m e to the appoint ed m eeting place fo r the dr ug transa ct ion s. T he re c anbe no d oubt that, take n w iththe r equis ite int en t, thi s c ondu ct

c onst itu te d m or e than th e m er e pr ep ar at ionto w hic h th e pr opos ed j ur y ins tr uc tio n r ef er s. R uiz ’ s de fe nse a t tri al e sse nti al ly w as that he did not take that a ct ionw iththe r equis ite int en t. F or e xa m ple , Ru iz te sti fi ed

he w en t
w ithS ie rr a to m ee t N uñe z onl y be ca use S ie rr a ha d a ske d hi m to ac co m pany him to help som eone, not because he intended to obtain drugs to sell. He further te stified that w he n he r ea liz ed

som ethin g su spi ci ous w as goi ng o n, he a tte m pte d ph y sic al ly to d ist an ce him se lf

f ro m S ie rr a an d N uñe z. Upon co nsi de ratio n of the na tur e of Ruiz’ s defense, we conclude the dist rict court’ s refusal to give the requested attem pt inst ruction was not reversible er ror. 5 III. CONCLUSION W e re ve rs e Appe llant C ar ra sc o’ s c onvi ct ion
. T he G ove rn m en t’ s f ai lur e to give Rule 404(b) no tice of Carrasc o’ s prior bad acts as to which it introduced
ev ide nc e at

tr ia l w as not

harm le ss. W e fi nd n o e rr or , how ev er , w ithr es pe ct to14

App el la nt Ru iz , andaffi rm hi s co nv ic ti on s an d s en te nc e ex cep t i ns of ar as we re m an dt o th e d i s t ri ct co u rt t o amen dth e ju d g m en tt o re fl ec tac cu ra t el y Ru i z’s of fe nse s of c onvi ct ion
. REVERSED IN PART, AFFIRM ED IN PART, andREMANDED.