The Honor able De nny Chin, United St ates District Court for the Southern District of * New Y ork, sitting by

designation. The Honor able Rosemar y S. Pool er, origina lly

a member

of the pa nel, did not ** pa rt ic ipate in c on sid e ratio n o f t his a pp e a l. T he tw o r e ma ini ngme mbe rs of thepa ne l, who are in agree ment, have de termined the matter. See 28 U.S.C. § 46(d); 2d Cir. Interna l Operating Pr oc e dure E; United States v. De simone , 140 F.3d 457 ( 2d Cir. 1998). 09-1 796 -cr Un ited St ates v . H an sen 1 U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A LS 2 F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT 3 4 SUM M AR Y O RD ER 5 6 R U L I N G S B Y S U M M A R Y OR D E R D O N OT HA V E P R E C E D E N T I A L E F F E C T . C I T A T I ON T O A 7 SUM M A R Y O R D ER FI LED O N O R AFTER JAN U A R Y 1, 20 07 , I S PER M I TTED A N D I S GO V ERN ED 8 B Y T H IS C O U R T ’S L O C A L R U L E 3 2 .1 .1 A N D F E D E R A L R U L E O F A P P E L L A T E P R O C E D U R E 3 2 .1 . 9 W H EN C I TI N G A S U M M A R Y O R D ER I N A D O C U M ENT FI LED W I TH TH I S C O U R T, A PA R TY 10 M U S T C I T E E I T HE R T HE F E D E R A L A P P E N D I X OR A N E L E C T R ON I C D A T A B A S E ( W I T H T HE 11 NO TATI O N “ S UM M ARY O RDER”) . A PARTY CI TI NG A S UM M ARY O RDER M US T S ERVE A CO PY 12 O F IT O N A N Y P A R T Y N O T R E P R E S E N T E D B Y C O U N S E L . 13 14 At a stated Te rm of the United States Court of A ppeals for the Second Circuit, held at the 15 Daniel Patric k Moy nihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of Ne w York, 16 on the 10 day

of Mar ch, two thousand a nd ten. th 17 18 Pr e se nt: 19 J OSEPH M. McLAUGHL I N, 20 Circuit Judge , 21 DENNYCHI N, * 22 District Judge

. ** 23 24

_____________________________________________________ 25 26 UN I TE D ST AT ES, 27 28 Appellee , 29 30 -v- (09-1796- cr) 31 32 BA SI LHANSEN, 33 34 Defendant- Appellant

. 35 36 37 Appea

ringfor Appe llant: Randall D. Ung er, B ay side, N.Y. 382 1 Appea

ringfor Appe llee: J acque ly n M. Rasulo, Assistant United St ates Attorne y , United 2 States Attorney ’s Off ice f or the Ea stern District of N ew Yor k 3 (Emily Be rg er, on the brief

) 4 5 Appea l from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Easter

n District of 6 New Y ork (Gle eson, Judge ). 7 8 ON CONSIDERATION WHE REOF, IT IS HEREB Y ORDERED, ADJUD GED, 9 AN D D EC RE ED that th e jud g me nt o f s a id D istri c t Co ur t be and it h e reby is AF F IRM ED

. 10 11 Hanse n was c onvicted of six drug of fense s, including c onspiracy to import heroin and 12 c oc a ine , in

vio latio n o f 2 1 U .S. C. § § 9 60 and 96 3, and c on sp ir a c y

to p os se ss w ithint e nt t o 13 distribute heroin and c ocaine , in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846. He argues on appe al that 14 the district court e rre d by allowingthe Gover

nment to introduce “ other a ct” e vidence , and that 15 the jury ’s inadver tent exposure to extra- rec ord evide nce deprived him of his right to a fair trial. 16 We assume the par ties’ familiarity

with the case

. 17 Hanse n’s argument that the district court a bused its discretion by

allowinghis co1 8 c o n s p ir ato r

to te s ti f y a b o ut t h e ir r e lati o n s h ip p r io r

to th e c o n s p ir a c y

is w it h o ut m e r it

. We 19 evaluate the admission of “othe r ac t” evidenc e base d on an “inc lusionary approa ch,” upholding 20 the admission of such evide nce “ for a ny purpose other

than to show a de fenda

nt’s criminal 21 propensity .” United States v. Brand, 4 67 F .3 d 1 79 , 1 96 (2 d Ci r. 20 06 ); see also United States v

. 22 Ga rc ia , 291 F.3d 127, 136 ( 2d Cir. 2002). “[O]ne leg itimate purpose for prese nting e vidence of 23 extrinsi c ac ts is to ex plain how a c riminal relationship deve loped; this sort of proof fur nishes 24 admissible background information in a conspirac y case .” Un ite d S

tates v . P ipo la , 83 F.3d 556, 25 566 (2d Cir. 1996). 26 Her e, in grantingthe Gover nment’s motion to admit hi s co-c onspirator’s te stimony , the 27 court noted that, “[a]tthe ver y least, this testimony

is properly

admissible to allow the jury to ge t 28 a fe e l f or the natur e of

the re latio ns hip be tw e e n M r. Ha ns e n a nd [the wi tne ss]. ” Th is w a s a3 1 proper

purpose that pr ovided re levant bac kground information. See id. The c ourt also provided 2 a limiting instruction to the jury , explaining that the testimony was only beingadmitted “to the 3 e xtent it

sh e ds light o n th e natur e of there latio ns hip be tw e e n th e de fe nd ant o n tria l and thi s 4 witness who is testifying a g ainst him.” Th is i ns tr uc tio n s uf

fi c ie ntl y c a bin e d a ny po ssi ble 5 prejudice

. Se eUn ite d S tates v . A ra ujo , 79 F.3d 7, 8 ( 2d Cir. 1996). 6 Also without merit is Hansen’s argument that the jury ’s inadver tent exposure to extra7 re c or d e vid e nc e de prive d h im o f h is right t o a fa ir tr ia l. “ [A] c ri min a l de fe nd ant’ s Sixth 8 Amendment rights are implicate d when a jury considers inc riminating e vidence that was not 9 admitted at trial.” Lol isc io v . G oo rd, 263 F.3d 178, 185 ( 2d Cir. 2001). “[E]x tra-r ecord 10 information that comes to the attention of a juror is pre sumptively prejudicia l.” United States v. 11 W

iley , 8 46 F .2 d 1 50 , 1 57 (2 d Ci r. 19 88 ) ( int e rn a l qu otatio n ma rk s o mitte d) . H ow e ve r, thi s 12 presumption may be rebutted by

a showingthat the jury ’s exposure to extra-re cord infor mation 13 was ha

rmless. Bi bb ins v . D als he im , 21 F.3d 13, 16 ( 2d Cir. 1994). Importantly , the trial judg e’s 14 c on c lus ion s r e g ard ingthe e ff e c t of the e xtra -r e c or d e vid e nc e on the jur y aree nti tle d to 15 substantial weight. Se eUn ite d S tates v . W e iss , 752 F.2d 777, 783 & n.2 (2d Cir. 1985). 16 Her e, the introduc tion of extra- rec ord evide nce w as not prejudicia l beca use therewas no 17 ind ic atio n th at th e jur y a c tua lly c on sid e re d it . T he dis tr ic t c ourt e xplic itl y

c re dit e d th e jur or s’ 18 statements that they had not looked at the e x tra-r ecord evidenc e. This finding, which is entitled 19 to substantial weight, is sufficient to defe at the pre sumption of prejudice. See id. 20 Acc ording ly , the judg ment of the district cour t here by is AFF I RMED. 21 22 FOR THECOURT: 23 Catherine O ’Ha g an Wolfe, Clerk 24 25 26