T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dentexce ptundert he * doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, h o w e v e r, fo r its p e rsu a siv e v a lu e c o n sis ten t w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C i r . R . 32. 1. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### M ay17,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ,

Pl ai nt i ff - A ppel l ee, N o. 06- 3244 v. (D . K ansas) D W A Y N G R A N T al so kn ow n as C J,

D e fe n d a n t - A p p e llan t. ( D. C. No . 0 4 - CR - 2 0 0 0 1 - KHV)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e KELLY , M UR P HY , and O’ BRI EN , C i rcui tJudg es.

A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det er m i ned unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s ti n t he det er m i nat i on o f th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. A ju ryfo u n d D w a yn G ra n t g u iltyo f o n e c o u n t o f

p o ss e ss io n w ith in ten t to di s t r i but e cr ack c ocai ne i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 841( a) ( 1) . G r antappea l s fr om hi s convi ct i on, cl ai m i ng t he tr i al cour terr ed i n r efus i ng t o i ns t ructt he j ur yon t he-2-

l es s eri ncl uded offens e of s i m pl e pos s es s i on and i n admi t t i ng evi dence of u n c h a rg e d d ru g s in h is p o s s e s s io n a t th e tim e o f h is a rr e s t. W e A F F IR M . B ackgr ound O n O ct ober17, 2003, O ffi cerB r i an H i l l , a pol i ce offi cerw i t h t he C i t yof O l athe, K ans as , w as conduct i ng a r out i ne patr ol . A s he patr ol l ed the parki ng ar ea of an a par t m entcompl ex, he not i ced a carbacke d i nt o a s pace on t he fa r , dar k end of the l ot . B eca us e i tw as par ked i n an i s ol at ed l ocat i on aw ayfr om t he entr ance to th e c o m p lex , O ffice r H ill th o u g h t it“ lo o k e d o u t o f p lac e ” a n d sh in e d h is s pot l i ghton t he ca r . ( R . V ol . I I I at41. ) H i l l s aw t he t op of a w om an’ s head i n t he pas s engers eat , butcoul d nots ee a ny one i n t he dr i ver ’ s s eat . A s he appr oache d t he pas s engers i de of the parked ca r , t he pas s enger , M el va K ennedy , s atup i n t he pas s enger ’ s s eatand bega n m ovi ng fr om s i de t o s i de, l i ke “s om eone s i t t i ng i n a chai rand ki cki ng a bal l . ” ( V ol . I I I at43. ) W hen H i l l r eac hed the pas s engers i de w in d o w h e o b se rv e d a n o th e r p e rso n , D w a yn G ra n t, i n th e re c lin e d d riv e r’s se a t. W hen he s hi ned hi s fl as hl i ghti nt o t he ca r , H i l l s aw a s m al l gl as s pi pe on the s i de of K ennedy ’ s foot . I tappea r ed t o be a c r ack pi pe. H i l l t ook t he ca rkey s and ca l l ed forbackup. A ppr oxi m at el yfi ve mi nut es l at er , O ffi cerH ol l yB arr ow arr i ved. H i l l t hen i ns t ruct ed G r antt o getoutof the c a r. G ra n t ac ted su rp rise d a t th e p re se n c e o f th e p ip e , d e n ied th e re w e re d ru g s in th e c a r a n d g a v e H ill p e rm iss io n to se a rc h h is p e rso n . In G ra n t’s le f t re a r p o c k e t, H i l l found a pl as t i c baggi e w i t h t hi r t y - t hr ee i ndi vi dual l yw r apped pa cket s of aA ndr ew G uzman, t he J ohns on C ount yC r i m i nal i s t i cs L abor at or yempl oy ee 1 w h o tes ted th e su b sta n c e s fo u n d in G ra n t’s b a g g ie, e x p lain e d : “C o c a in e sa lt [ c o c a in e h y d ro c h lo rid e ] is th e c o m m o n w h ite p o w d e r th a t m o st p e o p le a ss o c iate w i t h coca i ne. C ocai ne bas e i s actual l yt he r ock coc ai ne thati s comm onl yknow as cr ack c ocai ne. ” ( R . V ol . I I I at158. ) Feder al agent s i dent i fi ed 4. 1 gr ams of coca i ne bas e ( t he cha r ged drug quant i t y ) and appr oxi m at el y5 gr ams of coc ai ne p o w d er. Poss es s i on w i t h i nt entt o di s t r i but e 5 orm or e gr ams of cr ack c ocai ne 2 c a rr ie s a m a x im u m s e n te n c e o f fo rt yy e a rs . 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 1 (b )( 1 )( B )( IV )( iii) . L e s s th a n 5 g ra m s c a rr ie s a m a x im u m s e n te n c e o f fiv e y e a rs . 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 1 (b)(1 )(D ). -3- w h it e su b stan ce . S o m e o f th e p ac k ag es c o n tai n ed co ca ine ro ck s w h il e o thers c o n ta in e d c o c a in e p o w d e r. T h e s u b s ta n c e fie ld -t e s te d p o s itiv e fo r c o c a in e . 1 W hi l e s ear chi ng t he ca r , H i l l al s o found a not ebook above t he vi s oron t he dr i ver ’ s s i de. T he not ebook cont ai ned ca l cul at i ons H i l l bel i eved w er e evi dence of m o n e ytra n sa c tio n s fo r d ru g s. In a d d iti o n , H ill fo u n d $ 8 0 2 in G ra n t’s w a llet. G r antand K ennedyw er e arr es t ed. G r antw as i ndi ct ed on one c ountof pos s es s i on of m or e than fi ve gr ams of co ca ine b ase (crac k ) w ith the in tent to d istri b u te. A fter testi n g d eterm ined there w er e onl y4. 1 gr ams of coc ai ne bas e, t he governm entfi l ed a s uper s edi ng i ndi ct m entr emovi ng t he cr ack c ocai ne’ s w ei ght . Sever al day s befor e tr i al , G r ant 2 fi l ed a mot i on i n l i m i ne s eeki ng t o pr ecl ude the governm entfr om i nt r oduci ng e v id e n c e o f

th e a d d iti o n a l 5 .1 g ra m s o f p o w d e r c o c a in e c o n tain e d in sm a ll p ac k ets i n term ing led w ith the s m all p ac k ets o f c rac k co ca ine. T h e d istri ct co u rt d e n ie d th e m o tio n .-4-

K ennedyt es t i fi ed fort he governm ent , s ay i ng G r anthad gi ven hera r i de hom e fr om w or k t he eve ni ng of thei rarr es t s . O n t he w ay , s he s m oked s om e of G r ant ’ s cr ack c ocai ne. K ennedycoul d notr emem berw hetherG r antgave he rt he cr ack c ocai ne ors he found i ti n hi s car . I n anyevent , s he fe l ts he ow ed G r ant so m e fo rm o f p ay m en t fo r th e d rug s. K en n ed yk n ew G ran t fo r five o r si x y ea rs bu thad nev er s een h i m use drug s. E d D rake, a seni or pat rol offi cer w i t h the O l at he P oli ce D epart m ent, al so tes tifie d fo r th e g o v e rn m e n t. A c c o rd in g to D ra k e , a n o rm a l u se r g e n e ra lly p u r c h a s e s o n l yt h e a mo u n to f c r a c k c o c a i n e h e o rs h e wa n t s t o s mo k e a tt h e t i me of pur chas e; a l i ghtus erm i ghti nges tfr om . 2 t o . 5 gr ams a da yw hi l e a he avyus er s m okes 1 t o 1. 5 gr ams a da y ; t he pr es ence of tw o t ypes of coc ai ne i ndi cat ed G r ant

“ w a s b a sic a llyw o rk in g tw o d iffe re n t typ e s o f d ru g s fo r d iffe re n t clie n tele .” (V o l. I I I at220. ) D r ake c oncl uded “thes e drugs ar e bei ng . . . pos s es s ed w i t h t he i nt entt o s el l . ” (Id . ) T he governm entoffe r ed as evi dence phot ogr aphs of the baggi e cont ai ni ng b o th th e c ra c k a n d th e p o w d e r c o c a in e p a c k e ts c o n fisc a ted f ro m G ra n t. B o th drugs w er e admi t t ed overG r ant ’ s obj ect i on. A tt he cl os e of the governm ent ’ s evi dence , t he governm entoffe r ed, by s t i pul at i on, a l et t erw r i t t en byG r ant . I n t he l et t erG r ants t at ed he ha d no pr obl em w ith p lea d in g g u iltyto p o ss e ss io n , b u t th e e v id e n c e w a s in su fficie n t to dem on strat e his i ntentt o d i stri bu t e t he d rugs.-5-

G r ant ’ s theoryof defens e w as t hathe pos s es s ed the drugs , butdi d not inten d to d istri b u te t h em . H is on lyev iden ce w as th e testi m o n yo f h is m o ther, C ar ol yn G r ant . She expl ai ned how G r antw oul d oft en ac companyherand her hu sband t o the r i ver boa tcasi no s t o g am ble. A dayor tw o b efore G rant ’s arr est s he gave hi m appr oxi m at el y$600 t o $650 i n l ar ge bi l l s t o hol d s o s he w oul d not “pl ay [] back” t he money . ( R . V ol . I I I at267. ) O n t he ni ghtof the arr es t , s he and herhus band w er e w ai t i ng forG r antt o br i ng t he moneyt o t hei rhous e s o t hey coul d go t o t he ca s i nos t hateveni ng. G rantrequest ed an i nst ruct i on on si m ple possess i on , sugg est i ng i tw as a les se r in c lu d e d o ffe n se o f th e c h a rg e d o ffe n se . H e c laim e d th e ju ryc o u ld rati o n all yfin d p o sses sion o f c o ca ine b ase w ith o u t an in tent to d istri b u te. G ran t’ s r eques tgener at ed the fol l ow i ng col l oquyatthe pr el i m i naryi ns t ruct i on confe r ence : T h e C o u rt : D o y o u h av e a n yau tho ri tyw h ich s ay s I’m req u ir ed to d o that o v er the G o v ern m en t’ s oppos i t i on? [D efe ns e C ouns el ] : I do not . A nd, i n fac t , I t hi nk t he ca s e l aw i s over t he G overnm ent ’ s oppos i t i on y ou ar e notr equi r ed. T h e C o u rt: R ig h t. [D efe ns e C ouns el ] : B utI do w antt o m ake ve r ycl ear , I am re ques t i ng t hi s i ns t ruct i on cons i s t entw i t h w hatpr i orcouns el di d and s ubm i t t ed t o t he C our t . I don’ tw anty ou to th in k th a t I ’v e a b a n d o n e d th a t in s tru c tio n . I hav e no t . I adopt this , I pr op ose t his , I r equ est t hati tbe gi ven.-6-

(Id . at 2 9 5 -9 6 .) T h e ju d g e th e n a sk e d th e g o v e rn m e n t it s p o sitio n . It o bjec ted to t he i ns t ruct i on beca us e ther e w as no evi dence s ugges t i ng G r antw as m er el ya us er w ho pos s es s ed the coc ai ne forper s onal enj oym ent . T he r eques t ed i ns t ruct i on w as r efus ed. T he nextday , att he fi nal i ns t ruct i on confe r ence , t he j udge addr es s ed G ran t perso n all yreg ard ing the lesse r i n clud ed o ffen se in stru cti o n stat ing : “M r. G ra n t, y o u r a tto rn e ye x p lain e d to y o u th a t w h e re th e G o v e rn m e n t o bjec ts to gi vi ng . . . an i ns t ruct i on as t o a l es s eri ncl uded offens e thatt he C our tcannotgi ve t hati ns t ruct i on?” (Id . at304. ) G r antans w er ed “Y es . ” (Id . ) T he j udge expl ai ned, “So t hat ’ s w hyI overrul ed thatpar t i cul arr eques t . ” (Id .) T he j ur yconvi ct ed. T her eaf t er , G r antfi l ed a “ C ons ol i dat ed M ot i on for P o s t- T ri a l R e lie f” a rg u in g , in tera lia , t he evi dence w as i ns uffi ci entand the tr i al cour t ’ s err oneous admi s s i on of t he pow dercoca i ne r equi r ed ac qui t t al ora new t r i al . T he j udge deni ed the mot i on and s ubs equent l ys ent ence d G r antt o 63 m ont hs i m pr i s onm ent . T hi s t i m el yappea l fol l ow ed. D i s cus s i on 1. Instruct i on on L esserIncl ud ed O ffen se G r antagai n cont ends he w as ent i t l ed t o have the j ur ycons i dert he l es s er i ncluded offense of

si m ple possess i on (21 U . S . C . § 8 44 ), w hich carr i es a s ig n ific a n tly le s s s e v e re p e n a lty th a n p o s s e s s io n w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te . W e r e v i e w de novo w hethert he offens e on w hi ch the i ns t ruct i on i s s oughti s a l es s er“A defe ndantm aybe found gui l t yof . . . an offens e nec es s ar i l yi ncl uded 3 in the o ffen se c h arg ed . ” F ed . R . C ri m . P . 3 1 (c)(1). -7- i ncl uded offens e t o t he cha r ged cr i m e, butr evi ew t he tr i al cour t ’ s det er m i nat i on w hethert he evi dence j us t i fi es t he i ncl us i on of the i ns t ruct i on forabus e of d is c re tio n . Uni t ed Stat es v. Humphr ey, 208 F. 3d 1190, 1206 ( 10t h C i r . 2000) ( ci t i ng Uni t ed Stat es v. D ur an, 1 2 7 F .3 d 9 1 1 , 9 1 4 (1 0 th C ir.1 9 9 7 )). It is n o t a "br oad r angi ng di s cr et i on buti s focus ed narr ow l yon w hethert her e i s any evidence fa i rl yt end i ng t o b ear on t he les seri ncluded offense. " Id. “ [ A] d e fe n d a n t is e n tit led to a n in stru c tio n c o n c e rn in g a les se r c rim e , p u rsu a n t to [Feder al R ul e of Cri m i nal Pr ocedur e] 31( c) , i f the evi dence j us t i fi es t hat in s tru c tio n .” Uni t ed Stat es v. B r uce , 458 F. 3d 1157, 1162 ( 10th C i r . 2006) 3 (q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ), cer t . deni ed , 1 2 7 S .C t. 99 9 (2 0 0 7 ). “[ I]f th e re is e v id e n c e to su p p o rta lesse r i n clud ed o ffen se a n d d efen d an t r eq u ests su ch a c h arg e, th e c o u rt has no di s cr et i on t o r efus e t o gi ve the i ns t ruct i on. ” Id. ( quot at i ons om i t t ed) . B ut a l es s eri ncl uded offens e i ns t ruct i on oughtnotbe gi ven t o t he j ur ym er el yt o have a conve ni entcompromi s e i f the dec i s i on becomes di ffi cul tori n s ym pathyfort he d e fe n d a n t. A n d , w h ile p o ss e ss io n is n e c e ss a rilyp a rt o f p o ss e ss io n w ith in ten t to di s t r i but e, i ti s notnece s s aryt o gi ve a l es s eri ncl uded offence i ns t ruct i on fort hat re a s o n a lo n e . T o det er m i ne w hethert he di s t r i ctcour ts houl d have gi ven a l es s eri ncl uded o ffe n se in stru c tio n , w e a p p lya fo u r p a rt tes t:-8-

Fi r s t , t he defendantm us tpr oper l yr eques tt he i ns t ruct i on; s econd, t he el ement s of the l es s eri ncl uded offens e mustbe a s ubs etof the el ement s of the cha r ged offens e; t hi r d, the el ement r equi r ed fort he great er, charged offense t hat i s not an el em ent of t he les seroffense m us tbe i n di s put e; and fourt h, t he evi dence m us tbe s uch thatt he j ur ycoul d r at i onal l yacqui tt he defendanton t he gr eat eroffe ns e and convi cton t he l es s eroffe ns e. Humphr ey, 208 F. 3d at1206 ( ci t i ng D ur an, 127 F. 3d at914- 15) . “I f ea ch of t hes e fourel ement s can be s at i s fi ed, t he di s t r i ctcour tm us tpr ovi de the i ns t ruct i on. ” Un ite dS ta te s v A b ey ta , 2 7 F .3 d 4 7 0 , 4 7 3 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 4 ); s ee Uni t ed Stat es v. B ur ns , 6 2 4 F .2 d 9 5 , 1 0 3 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 8 0 ); Keebl e v. Uni t ed St at es , 4 1 2 U .S . 2 0 5 , 2 0 8 (1 9 7 3 ). H er e, G r antm ett he fi r s tt w o par t s of the four - par tt es t . H e r eques t ed the i ns t ruct i on and “[ p] os s es s i on of a c ont r ol l ed s ubs t ance , r el at i ve t o t he cr i m e of pos s es s i on of s uch w i t h i nt entt o di s t r i but e, i s a pr ot ot ypal ‘ l es s eri ncl uded offe ns e. ’ ” B ur ns , 6 2 4 F .2 d a t 1 0 4 . It i s le ss c lea r w h e th e r h e m e t th e th ird p a rt. “A bs ents om e evi dence t o count ert he s t r ong i nfer ence of [the cha r ged offens e]

. . . t he i s s ue i s notel evat ed t o a trul ydi s put ed one. ” Uni t ed Stat es v. Joe, 831 F. 2d 218, 220 ( 10t h C i r . 1987) ( quot i ng Unit ed S t ates v. R og ers , 504 F. 2d 1079, 1 0 8 4 (5 th C ir.1 9 7 4 )); s ee Uni t ed Stat es v. Haar , 9 3 1 F . 2 d 1 3 6 8 , 1 3 7 2 (10 th C ir . 1991) . T hus , t he thi r d par tof the t es ti s notm etbyt he mer e expe di entof deni al a n d “ p u ttin g th e g o v e rn m e n t to its p ro o fs ,” b u t r e q u ir e s a d is p u te in th e e v id e n c e . B ut , i r r es pect i ve of the thi r d par t , G r antcl ear l yfai l ed t o m eett he fourt h par tand-9-

“ F a ilu re to m e e t a n yp a rto f th e te s t is fa ta l fo r t h e d e fe n d a n t.” Joe, 831 F. 2d at 219. Si nce c ontr ol l ed s ubs t ance s ar e har dl ycol l ect or ’ s i t ems, pos s es s i on m us tbe forone of tw o purpos es , per s onal us e ordi s t r i but i on t o ot her s . I n t hi s cas e the o n ly iss u e w a s in te n t. R es ol ut i on of the i s s ue depe nds upon r eas onabl e i nfer ence s a j ur ym i ght dr aw fr om t he evi dence . For t hr ee r eas ons t he governm ents ugges t s onl yone i nfer ence w as r eas onabl e – an i nt entt o di s t r i but e: ( 1) T he amount of coc ai ne G r antpos s es s ed w as m or e than one pe r s on w oul d qui ckl ycons um e and i tw as p a c k a g e d fo r d istrib u tio n , (2 ) G ra n t’s p o ss e ss io n o f tw o typ e s o f

c o c a in e su g g e sts a n in ten t to d istrib u te a n d (3 ) th e a m o u n t o f c a sh in th e d e n o m in a tio n s fo u n d in G ra n t’ s p o s s e s s io n w e re in d ic a tiv e o f d ru g d e a lin g . G ran t sees itd iffe ren tl y . A s to the firstp o int he refers to O fficer D rak e’s t es t i m onyr egar di ng quant i t i es of cr ack a heavyus erm i ghtus e 1 t o 1. 5 gr ams per dayand cont ends t he amount of cr ack c ocai ne he pos s es s ed coul d be cons um ed by a hea vyus erovera cour s e of thr ee t o fourday s . A ccor di ngl y , he ar gues , t he a m o u n t d o e s n o t n e c e ss a rilyim p lya n in ten t to d istrib u te d ru g s. W ith re sp e c t to t he s econd poi ntG r antacknow l edges D r ake’ s t es t i m onyt hati tw as nott ypi cal for a p e rso n to u se b o th typ e s o f c o c a in e (p o w d e r a n d c ra c k ) b e c a u se a u se r u su a lly p r e fe r s o n e o v e rt h e o t h e r . N e v e r t h e l e s s , h e e m p h a s i z e s th a tD r a k e d i d n o ts a y a per s on w i l l neverpos s es s t w o t ypes of coc ai ne forper s onal us e. Fi nal l y , heW e cons i der ed and r ej ect ed a s i m i l arar gum enti n Haarw her e w e quot ed 4 th e d istric t co u rts fin d in g s: “ [ A] f t erhear i ng al lthe ev i dence , I j us tdi dn'tthi nk thatther e w as any ev i dence el i ci t ed t o es t abl is h thatMr . Haarm er el y pos s es s ed i tand w as notf

ur theri nvolved, and I thi nk i tal lis di r ect ed t o m anuf act ur e and the jury is ei ther go i ngt o h ave to beli eve t ha the w as i nvo l ved in the m an ufact ure o r n o t. ” 931 F. 2d at1372 ( emphasi s added) . W e then s ai d: “A ft err evi ew i ng t he re c o rd a s a w h o le, w e a g re e w ith th e trial c o u rt' s d e ter m in a tio n th a t th e e lem e n ts differ enti at i ng t he tw o o ffen ses w ere not i n d i spute. T herefore, w e fi nd no abu se of di s cr et i on i n t he court ' s r ej ect i on of D efe ndant ' s r eques t ed l es s er - i ncl udedo ffe n s e in s tru c tio n fo r m e re p o s s e s s io n .” Id. -10- c laim s h is e v id e n c e a b o u t th e a m o u n t an d d e n o m in a tio n o f th e m o n e yin h is p o s s e s s io n n e g a te s a n yin fe re n c e w ith re s p e c t to th e g o v e rn m e n t’ s th ir d p o in t. In su m m a ry , G ra n t co n c e d e s th e g o v e rn m e n t co u ld p ro p e rlya sk th e ju ryto d ra w in fe re n c e s a d v e rs e to h im , b u t it w o u ld n o t b e o b lig a te d to d o s o . B ur ns , 624 F. 2d at104. Fr om t hat , he conc l udes t he l es s eri ncl uded offens e s houl d have b e e n g i v e n , a l l o w i n g t h e j u r y t o i n fe rw h a ti tm i g h ta n d d e c i d e a c c o r d i n g l y. 4 I n r es pons e, t he governm entcl ai m s G r antw as notent i t l ed t o t he l es s er in c lu d e d o ffe n s e in s tru c tio n b e c a u s e th e re w a s s im p ly n o e v id e n c e h e u s e d d ru g s . A lth o u g h G ra n t ad m itt e d h e p o ss e ss e d d ru g s, h e n e v e r a d m itt e d to u sin g . In fa c t, t h e o n l yt e s t i mo n yo n t h i s s u bj e c twa s f r o m K e n n e d y , wh o s a i d s h e h a d k n o wn G rantfor fi ve o r s i x y ears and had nev er s een h i m use drug s. T he governm ent ’ s s econd a nd t hi r d poi nt s ( t w o ki nds of drugs and s us pi ci ous cas h) per m i tan i nfer ence of i nt entt o di s t r i but e, butt heyar e equi vocal and a j ur ym i ghtnotdr aw an al l ow abl e i nfer ence , even i f i ti s r eas onabl e. T he fi rs tpo i nt i s another m at t er. T here w as no d i rectevidence G rantused d rugs.-11-

A ccor di ngl y , hi s ar gum entt hatt he amount of drugs di s cover ed i n hi s pos s es s i on c o u ld h a v e b e e n c o n su m e d b ya h e a v yu se r in th re e to fo u r d a y s is o n ly t heor et i cal . T he i s s ue i s , t el l i ngl y , notw hata hypot het i cal heavyus erm i ght cons um e, butw hatG r antm i ghtcons um e. G r ant ’ s ar gum entw oul d r equi r e the ju ryto m e re lysp e c u late a b o u t h is p o ss ib le d ru g u se , an d h e a v yd ru g u se a t th a t. A nd t her e w as ot herevi dence of G r ant ’ s i nt entt o di s t r i but e – pos s es s i on of t hi r t y - t hr ee s m al l packa ges of t w o di ffe r entfor m s of coc ai ne and the pr es ence of a d ru g le d g e r i n h is v e h ic le . A g a in st a n im p re ss iv e a rra yo f e v id e n c e su g g e stin g a n in ten t to d istrib u te is th e tes tim o n yo f

G ra n t’s m o th e r, ex p lain in g h is s u sp icio u s c a sh . A n d h is a rg u m e n ts , m o re h yp o th e tic a l th a n ra tio n a l. B u t h e is re q u ir e d to p ro v e n o th in g . H is de fe n se m ayco n sisten ti relyo f a tt em p ti n g to d ispa rag e the g o v ern m en t’ s e v id e n c e , a rg u in g it is in s u ffic ie n t a s p ro o f b e y o n d a re a s o n a b le d o u b t. W hi l e he i s pr es um ed i nnocentand perm i s s i bl e ar gum ent s foran ac qui t t al a re lar g e lyu n b o u n d , h e is e n tit led to a les se r in c lu d e d o ffe n c e in stru c tio n o n lyif t he evi dence i s s uch thatt he j ur ycoul d r at i onal l yacqui thi m of the gr eat er offe ns e and c onvi ctof the l es s er . W e coul d s pecul at e as t o w hethera j ur ym i ght r at i onal l yacqui tbas ed upon the i nfer ence s di s cus s ed, butw e nee d notr es tour d e c is io n o n s u c h e s o te ri c g ro u n d s b e c a u s e h is in te n t w a s m a d e m a n ife s t.K ennedyt es t i fi ed s he coul d notr emem bers peci fi cal l yi f G r anthanded 5 h e r th e d ru g s o r if

sh e ju st h e lp e d h e rse lf. It m a tters n o t. N o th in g su g g e sts K ennedyhad herow n cr ack. T he onl yr eas onabl e i nfer ence i s t hatG r antknew sh e w a s u sin g h is d ru g s w h e n sh e lo a d e d a n d litth e c ra c k p ip e w h ile th e yw e re in t he extr emel yconfi nes of the ca r . T he j ur yw as corr ect l yi ns t ruct ed: T h e th ir d e lem e n t o f th e c rim e c h a rg e d re q u ire s th e g o v e rn m e n t to p ro v e b e yo n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t th a t d e fe n d a n t in ten d e d to d istrib u te th e m ix tu re o r su b sta n c e c o n tain in g c o c a in e b a s e . T h e ter m “ to d is tr ib u te ,” a s u s e d in th e s e in s tr u c t i o n s , m eans t o del i verortr ans f er pos s es s i on orcontr olof so m ethin g fro m o n e p erso n to an o ther. (R . V o l. I , D o c . 1 2 3 a t 1 9 (e m p h a s is a d d e d ).) T h e trial c o u rt e rro n e o u slysta ted “ w h e re th e G o v e rn m e n t o bjec ts to 6 gi vi ng . . . an i ns t ruct i on as t o a l es s eri ncl uded offens e [] t he C our tcannotgi ve that instruction . ” (R . V o l. III at 30 4 . ) T h e g o v ern m en t cl aim s the tr ial co u rt ’s mi s t a k e wa s t h e r e s u l to f t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s o f Gr a n t ’ s c o u n s e l a n d t h e r e fo r e , we s houl d notr evi ew t hi s cl ai m beca us e G r anti nvi t ed the err or . “The i nvi t ed- err or doctr i ne pr event s a part yw ho i nduces an err oneous rul i ng fr om bei ng abl e t o have i ts etas i de on appe al . ” Uni t ed Stat es v. D eber r y, 4 3 0 F . 3 d 1 2 9 4 , 1 3 0 2 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ( q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ), cer t . deni ed , 127 S. C t . 113 ( 2006) . B eca us e w e fi nd anyerr or harm l ess, w e need no tdecide t he is sue on t his basi s. -12- K enn edyt est i fi ed to obtai ning crack coc ai ne from G rantt he n i gh tof h i s arres t 5 a n d h e r te stim o n yw e n t u n c o n tra d icte d . S u c h e v id e n c e o f d istrib u tio n is irre f u tab le e v id e n c e o f

a n in ten t to d istrib u te. T h e d istric t co u rt d id n o t ab u se its l i m i t ed di s cr et i on i n r efus i ng t he r eques t ed l es s eri ncl uded offens e i ns t ruct i on. B uteven i f the courterr ed i n r efus i ng t he i ns t ruct i on, t he err orw as harm l ess. S e e Un itedS ta tes v . Tru jil lo , 390 F. 3d 1267, 1275 ( 10t h C i r . 2004) 6 ( “[A ] non- cons t i tut i onal err ori s har m l es s unl es s t he err orhad s ubs t ant i al in flu e n c e o n th e o u tco m e o f trial o r if

o n e is le f

t in g ra v e d o u b t as to its i nfl uence . ”) . T he evi dence of G r ant ’ s i nt entt o di s t r i but e w as overw hel m i ng.R ule 404(b) of t he F ederal R ules of E vidence p rovi des as foll ow s: 7 (b ) O th er C rim es, W ro n g s, o r A cts.- - E vi dence o f other cr i m es , w r ongs , oract s i s not adm i s s i bl e t o pr ove the c h a ra c ter o f

a p e rso n in o rd e r to sh o w a c tio n in c o n fo rm ity t her ew i t h. It m ay , how ever , be admi s s i bl e forot her p u rp o se s, su c h a s p ro o f o f m o ti v e , o p p o rtu n ity , inte n t, pr epar at i on, pl an, know l edge, i dent i t y , orabs ence of m i s t ake oracc i dent , pr ovi ded thatupon r eques tbyt he acc us ed, t he pr os ecut i on i n a cr i m i nal cas e s hal l pr ovi de r eas o n a b l e n o t i c e i n a d v a n c e o f t r i a l , o rd u r i n g t r i a l i f t he cour texcus es pr etr i al not i ce on go o d ca u s e s how n, of the gener al natur e of any s uch evi dence i t i nt ends t o i nt r oduce a t trial. -13- 2. A dm i s s i on of Evi dence G r antcl ai m s t he tr i al cour terr ed i n admi t t i ng evi dence he pos s es s ed pow dercoca i ne underR ul e 404( b) of the Feder al R ul es of Evi dence . T he governm entar gues R ul e 404( b) i s i nappl i cabl e bec aus e i tonl yappl i es t o evi dence of ac t s extr i ns i c t o t he cha r ged cr i m e. A ccor di ng t o t he governm entt hi s evi dence w a s p ro p e rlya d m itt e d , n o t u n d e r R u le 4 0 4 (b ), b u t b e c a u se it w a s s o in e x trica b ly i nt er t w i ned w i t h t he cha r ged offens e thatt he w i t nes s es ’ t es t i m onyw oul d have been c onfus i ng and i ncompl et e i f i tw er e exc l uded. W e agr ee. “W e r evi ew t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s admi s s i on of evi dence forabus e of di s cr et i on. ” Uni t ed Stat es v. P or t i l l o- Q uez ada , 4 6 9 F . 3 d 1 3 4 5 , 1 3 5 3 (10 th C ir . 2006) . “R ul e 404( b) onl yappl i es t o evi dence of ac t s extr i ns i c t o t he cha r ged cr i m e. ” Unit ed S t ates v. L am bert , 995 F. 2d 1006, 1007 ( 10t h C i r . 1993) ( quot at i ons om i t t ed) . B eca us e the evi dence of G r ant ’ s pos s es s i on of pow der 7-14-

c o c a in e is n o t ex trin sic , b u t is in trin sic to th e p o ss e ss io n w ith in ten t to d istrib u te c ra c k c o c a in e c h a rg e , R u le 4 0 4 (b ) i s in a p p lic a b le . Id. (“ O th e r a c t ev id e n c e is i nt r i ns i c w hen the evi dence of the otheractand the evi dence of the cr i m e cha r ged ar e i nextr i cabl yi nt er t w i ned orbot h act s ar e partof a s i ngl e cr i m i nal epi s ode or t he otheract s w er e nec es s arypr el i m i nar i es t o t he cr i m e cha r ged. ”) ( quot at i ons o m itt e d ); see also Unit ed S t ates v. R ecord , 8 7 3 F . 2 d 1 3 6 3 , 1 3 7 2 n . 5 (10 th C ir . 1989) ( “A n unchar ged ac tm aynotbe extr i ns i c i f i tw as par tof the s cheme for w h ich a d e fe n d a n t is b e in g p ro se c u ted o r if it w a s in e x trica b lyin ter tw in e d w ith t he cha r ged cr i m e s uch thata w i t nes s ’ t es t i m onyw oul d have be en conf us i ng and in c o m p le te w ith o u t m e n tio n o f th e p ri o r a c t.” ) ( c ita tio n s a n d q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ).

“ S u c h in trin sic ‘o th e r a c t’ e v id e n c e , alth o u g h n o t ex c lu d e d b y4 0 4 (b ), is s t i l l s ubj ectt o t he r equi r ement of Fed. R . E vi d. 403 t hati t s pr obat i ve val ue i s not s ubs t ant i al l yout w ei ghed byt he dange rof unfa i rpr ej udi ce. ” L am bert , 995 F. 2d at1007- 08. H er e, t he evi dence of G r ant ’ s pos s es s i on of the pow dercoca i ne w as re lev a n t to w h e th e r h is p o ss e ss io n o f th e c ra c k c o c a in e w a s w ith th e in ten t to di s t r i but e i t . H e fa i l s t o demonst r at e thi s evi dence w as m or e pr ej udi ci al t han p ro b a tiv e . G rantcon cedes t he ev i den ce w as r el evan tt o h i s i ntentbu tno nethel ess ar gues t he courtfai l ed t o m eeti t s “dutyt o exci s e evi dence of otherunchar ged w r ongs i f [i t ] can do s o w i t houtdes t r oy i ng t he r el evanc yof the evi dence t hat addr es s es i t s el f t o t he cha r ges . ” Uni t ed Stat es v. Kel l ey , 6 3 5 F .2 d 7 7 8 , 7 8 2 (1 0 th-15-

C i r . 1980) . H e cl ai m s evi dence of hi s pos s es s i on of the pow dercoca i ne w as “not n e c e ss a ryto e x p lain to th e ju ryth e g o v e rn m e n t’s b e lief th a t h e w a s e n g a g e d in t he d i stri bu t i on of crack co cai ne” b ecause the gov ernm ent’ s expert s di d n ot s o t es t i fy . ( A ppel l ant ’ s B r . at19. ) G r ant ’ s r el i ance on Kel l ey is m is p la c e d . Kel l ey i nvol ved extr i ns i c 404( b) evi dence . B ut , m or e i m por t ant , t he pr emi s e of the a rg u m e n t fa ils. A s th e g o v e rn m e n t ar g u e d , jus t b e c a u se th e g o v e rn m e n t’s e x p e rts d id n o t sp e c ifica llyre lyo n th e p re se n c e o f th e p o w d e r c o c a in e in re a c h in g th e ir concl us i ons does notm ean the j ur ycoul d notcons i deri ta fa ct ori n det er m i ni ng w hetherG r anti nt ended t o di s t r i but e the cr ack c ocai ne. AF F I RMED . ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT T err ence L . O ’ B r i en C i r cui tJ udge