P u rsuan tt o 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5, t h e courtha s determ i n ed that t h i s opi n i on * shou l d n otbe pu bl i shed an d i s not preceden texcept u n der t h e l i m i t ed c i r c um s t anc e s s e tf

o r t h i n 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5. 4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 07- 31084 Su m m ar y Cal endar
UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee

v. TYRUS M I GUEL COOP ER D e fe nda nt
- Appe l l ant

A pp eal s f

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f o rt he M i ddl e D i s t r i c to f Lo ui s i ana U S D C N o . 3 :04 -C R -1 3 8 -1 U S D C N o . 3 :05 -C R -2 2 7 -1
B ef ore K IN G , G A R W O O D an d B A R K S D A L E , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * T yrus M i gu elC ooper ap p e a ls h is j u ry- convic t i on of di st ribu t i on of

50 or
m o r e g r a m s o f

c o c a i n e b a s e , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 2 1 U
. S
. C. § 8 4 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) a n d1 8 U. S
. C. § 2
. H i s s o l e c o nt e nt i o n o n ap pe al i s t hat ad m i s s i o n o f a n i nf o r m ant ’ s t e s t i m o ny t hatas se r t edly i m pl i es t ha t Coopert hre at ened t o kil lhi m and hi s fam i l y w as b o th irr e le v a n t a n de x tr e m e lyp r eju d ic ia l, re s u ltin gin p la in e r r o r . United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Ma rc h 16, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 07- 31084

2 A l t h ou gh C ooper (represented b y coun selh ere an d bel ow ) n ow chal l en ges t he a dm i s s i o n o f

t he t hr e att e s t i m o ny, C o o pe rdi d notata ny t i m e o bj e c tt o t he t e s t i m o ny dur i ng t he t r i alo rm o ve t o s t r i ke i t and he di d no t o t he r w i s e pr e s e nt t o t h e di st ri ct court an y com pl ai n t s or concerns abou t i t
. T h eref ore, as C ooper concedes, t h i s i ssue i s sub j ect t o pl ai n err or r evi ew . To sh ow pl ai n err or, C ooper m usts how an er r orthati s c l earorob vi ous and t hataf fec t s hi s subs t ant i al
r ig h ts
. S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. T h ompson , 45 4 F. 3d4 59 , 4 64 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 6)
. I f he
m a k e s s u c h a s h o w in g , t h is c o u r t h a s t h e d is c r e tio n t o c o r r e c t t h e e r r o rb u t o n ly i f i ts er i ous l y af

fec t s t he fai r nes s, i nt egr i t y, orpubl i c r eput at i on o f j udi c i al p r o c e e d in g s . I

d. E vid en ce th a t a p a rty t h reat en ed a w i t n ess i s general l y ad m i ssibl e. Uni t e d St at e s v . Roc ha , 9 1 6 F
. 2 d2 1 9 , 2 4 1 ( 5 t h C i r . 1 9 9 0 )
. Whe n i ti s n o tk n o wn w h o m ad e or cau sed t h at th reat , at l east absen tsom e speci alcircum st an ce not pre se nther e, ev i denc e thata w i t n ess has bee n t hre at ened w oul d ge ner al l y be i n ad m i ssibl e. A s w i t h evid e n ce of ot h er c ri m es, w rongs or act s un der F ED . R. E VID . 404(b) , t he e vi denc e i s gener al l y a d m i ssibl e “ onl y if t he j ury c an r e a s o n a b lyco n c lu d e th a t th e a c t oc c u r r e d a n d th a t th e d e fe n d a n t w a s th e a c to r .” Hu d d lest on v . Un it ed S t ate s , 108 S. C t
. 1496, 1501 ( 1988) , c i t i ng Un i t ed S t ate s v . Be e c hum , 5 8 2 F .2 d8 9 8 , 9 1 2 -1 3 (5 th C ir . 1 9 7 8 ) ( e n b a n c ). H o w e v e r , th e r e is
n o req u i rem en t t h a t t h e tri a lcou rt m a k e a pr eli m i n a ryf i n d i n g th a t t h e p a rty
c om m i t t ed t he ac t– her e, m ade the t hre at– bef ore i n i t i al l y ad m i t t i n g evi den ce o f th e a c t o rth r e a t. Hu d d lest on , a t 1 5 0 0 -0 1
.
“ O f t en t h e t ri alcourtm ay d eci de to al l ow t h e propon en tt o i n t rodu ce evi denc e c on cern i n g a s i m i l arac t , and ata l at erpoi nti n t he t r i al as s e s s w h et he rs uf

f i c i e nte vi de nc e ha s b e e n o f fe r e d t o pe r m i tt he j u ryto m a k e th e req u i sit e fi n d i n g. If the pr op on en t ha s fa i l ed to m eett h e m i n i m alst an da rd of proof, t h e t ri alcourtm u sti n st ruct th e j u ryto disreg a rdthe ev i d en ce.” Id
. a t 1 5 0 1 -02 (footn ote o m itted ).N o. 07- 31084

R u l e 404 (b) p rovi des t h at “upon requ estby the accused” t h e prosecuti on 1 sh a l lgive p retrial n oti ce of ev i d en ce of oth er crim es, w ron gs o r acts inten d ed to be i n t rodu ced at t ri al ; t h e rec ord does not ref l ectei t h er t h at an y such request w as m ad e by the defen se ort h at no such n ot i ce w as given , an d n o com pl ai n tof n on com pl i an ce w i t h t h i s provi si on w as m ad e a t t rialan d n on e such h as been m a d e o n a p p e a l. 3 H ow ev er, “‘ [i]ti s, of cou rse, no t t h e re sp on sibi l i ty of t h e j u d ge su a sp on te to i ns ur e t hatt he f

o unda t i o n e vi de nc e i s o f fe r e d; t he o bj e c t o rm us tm o ve t o s t r i ke t he e vi de nc e if

a tt he c l o s e of the t r i alt he o f fe r r o rha d fail e d t o s at i s f y t he
c o n d itio n .’2 1 C . W r ig h t & K . G r a h a m , F EDERAL P RA CT I CE AND P ROC EDUR E§ 5 0 5 4 , pp . 26 9 -70 ( 1 9 7 7 ) (f oo tn ote om i tted). ” Hu d d lest on , a t 1 5 0 1 -0 2 , n .7
. H e re , t h e i n f

orm an tprosecuti on w i t n ess t est i f i ed on di rectexam i n ati on th a t, a t s o m e u n s ta te dtim e , ca lls h a db e e n m a d e t o h is h o u s e a n dh is gi r l f r i end’ s house t hre at eni ng ki l l i ng hi m an d h i s fam i l y, bu thi s t es t i m ony ga ve n o i n di cat i on as t o w h o m ad e, or w as res pon sibl e f or, t h e th reat en i n g cal l s or w h y t h ey w ere m ad e . N o o b jec t i on (or m ot i on t o excl u de) w h atever w as ever m ad e b e l o w a s t o this t e s t i m o ny, no rw as a ny i ns t r uc t i o n t o di s r e ga r d, o ra ny o t he ri ns t r u c t i o nr e g ar di ng t hi s t e s t i m o ny, e ve rr e que s t e d (o rg ive n) b e l o w . The 1
w i t n ess al so test i f

i ed t h at the defenda n tcall ed h i m a th i s h ou se a w eek befor e th e tr ia l a n d“t o ldm e h e w a s s u b p o e n a in gm e to co m e to co u r t” a n d“I to ldh im
a lr ig h t,” a n dth a t w a s a ll th a t w a s s a id (e x c e p t th a t d e fe n d a n t sa id h e w o u ldca ll b a c k , b u t n e v e rd id). T h is ca ll fr o m th e d e fe n d a n t s u r p r is e dth e w itn e s s , b u t d id
n otm ak e hi m “ a l i t t l e nervou s” or “ scared. ” T h i s i n f orm an tw i t n ess al so t est i f i ed h e had l i ke w i s e he l pe d “bus t” – i n s t i ngs w i t h t he D EA – s o m e s i x t o 10 other
a r e ain d iv id u a ls , a ll o f w h o m h a d b e e n a r r e s te d a n d in d ic te d

– a n dw a s u n a b le to s a yw h e th e ra n yo f th e m m a d e th r e a ts to h is fa m ilya n ds ta te d“I d o n ’ t r e a lly kn ow w h o i t w as m ak i n g t h reat s t o m y fam i l y. ” A n ot h er w i t n ess al so t est i f i ed t h a tt h e t h r e a t e n e di n f o r m a n twi t n e s s h a dh e l p e d“b us t ” ot h e r s i n o t h e rDEA st i ngs and di d notk n ow o f any of t hos e pe opl e m aki ng t hre at s agai nstt hat i n f orm an tan d h adnot “h eard an ythi n g abou tsom eon e t h reat en i n g t o hu rtN o. 07- 31084

I nde e d, t he r e i s no m e nt i o n what e ve ro f t hr e at s i n an y of

the c l o s i ng 2 argu m en t s. Th e t h reatevi den ce w as nev er an i m portant orsi gn i f i can tpart of th e g o v e r n m e n t’s ca s e . 4 an ybod y t h at hel ped setup t h ese deal s. ” T h e d efen da n ttest i f i ed t h at h e ha d n ot th r e a te n e dth e in fo r m a n t w itn e s s n o rd idh e “s e n da n yb o d yto th r e a te n h im .” Th er e w as no e vi denc e t hatthe def endantm ade the t hre at s m ent i oned b y t he i nf or m antw i t nes s. C ons equent l y, t he evi denc e of s uch t hre at s sho ul d have been st ri cken an d the j u ry i n st ructed t o di sregard i t
. H ow ever, si n ce obj ect i on w as neve rm ade t o the t hre atev i denc e a nd no i nst r uct i on to d i sregard t hat
e vi de nc e (o ro t he ri ns t r uc t i o n i n r e ga r d t he r e t o ) w as e ve rr e que s t e d, a nd n o mo t i o n f

o rmi s t r i a lo ro t h e rr e l i e f i n r e s p e c tt h e r e t o wa s e v e rma d e b e l o w, r e v ie w , a s a b o v e n o te d , is o n lyfo rp la in e r r o r . W e hol d there w as error i n t h i s respect an d, argu en do, even t h at t h e err or w as cl ear or obvious. H ow ever, w e concl u de t h at reversal i s n ot cal l ed f or un der t h e pl ai n err or rule. S u ch i m proper an on ym ou s threat tes t i m on y cert ai n l y does
n otcal lf

or per s erevers aleven w h ere ti m el y an d p roper obj ection h as been
m a d e . Se e, e . g. , Uni t e d St at e s v . Tho m as , 8 6 F .3d 6 4 7 , 6 5 5 (7t h C ir. 1 9 9 6 ). G ive n t hatCoo pe rde ni e d m ak i ng or caus i ng t he t hr e at s , t hatt he t hre at ened w i t nes s neveri nt i m at ed t hatC oo per m ade t he t hre at s, t hats eve r al
o t hers w ere sh ow n t o ha ve am o t ive t o t hr e at e n t he w i t ne s s , t hatt he r e i s no evi den ce C ooper w as respon sibl e forthe t h reat s, a n d t h at t h e prosecuti on nev er argu ed that he w as, w e can n ot concl u de that t h ere i s anysubstanti all i kelih ood 2 t hatt he j ur y f

o und o ra s s um e d t h at C ooper m ad e o rw as r e s po ns ibl e f o rt he t h reat s. M oreover, C ooper essenti al l y ad m i t t ed h i s gui l tof t h e charged of

fen se an d h i s ow n t est i m on y – show i n g st rong p redi spo sit i on t o both sel lan d u se c o c a in e (a lb e it a t le a s t u s u a llyin s m a lle rq u a n tit ie s ) a n dre a d yp a r tic ip a tio n in t he o f fens e, as w el las not hi ng on t he gover nm ent ’ s par tm at er i al l y gr eat ert han it s af f ordi n g th e opp o rtu n ityforth e offe n se , o v e rw h e lm in g ly s u p p o rt s th e verdi ctN o. 07- 31084

S ee , e.g ., Un itedS ta tes v. Og le , 3 2 8 F .3d 1 8 2 , 1 8 5 , 1 8 6 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ); 3 Un i t ed S t ate s v. R eyes , 2 3 9 F .3 d 7 2 2 , 7 3 9 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ); Un i t ed S t ate s v. Wi se , 2 2 1 F .3d 1 4 0 , 1 5 4 -5 5 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 0 ). 5 of gu i l t y an d i t s (i m pl i ci t) rej ect i on of C ooper’ s entr ap m en tdefen se . W e 3
c o n c lu d e th a t t h e e r r o rin q u e s tio n d idn o t c r e a te s u b s ta n tia l im p r o p e ro ru n fa ir prej u di ce and di d n otser i ou sly af fectt h e fai rness, i n t egri t y, or pub l i c r epu t ati on of j u di ci alproceedi n gs. A ccor di n gl y, t h e j u dg m en tof t h e di st ri ctcourti s AF F I RMED.