### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 40116

U N IT E D S T A T E S O F A M E R IC A , P la in tiff-A p p e lle e ,
ve r s us J O H N F IT Z G E R A L D R IC E , J R .; S A R A H LY N N C O R M IE R , D efen da n t s- A pp el l an t s .

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 ort he E as t er n D i st r i c tof Texas

B ef ore G A R W O O D , SM ITH , an d C L E M E N T , C i rcui tJu dg es . JE R R YE

. SM ITH , C i rcui tJu dg e:
Jo hn Ri c e a nd Sa r ah Cor m i e ra ppe alt he i rc o nvi c t i o ns of c arj ac ki ng and
r e l at e d o f

fe ns e s . The y r ai se va ri o us c l ai m s o f e r r o ra nd p r o s e c ut o r i alm i s c o nd u c t. W e a ffir m .
I

. O n e d a yin D e c e m b e r2 0 0 7 , C o r m ie ra n dR ic e jo in e dA ld r a in B o o k e r , K e iUnited States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D May 12, 2010 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk Case: 09-40116 Document: 00511109161 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/12/2010N o. 09- 40116

2 sha G ui dry , Jo shua H ayw ar d, and W i l l i am St aunto n i n se ar c h of peo pl e t o r ob. T h e g ro up f

i r s tw e ntt o al o c alb i ngo ha l l , w he r e Ri c e a nd H ay w ar d d i s c us s ed
r o b b in gaw o m a n w h o h a d j u s tw o n th e b igp r iz e . T h e ya llp il e din t o G u id r y ’s car, an d R i ce t ol d Stanton, w h o w as drivi n g, t o f ol l ow t h e w om an hom e. W h en t h ey arrived there, R i ce ret ri evedh i s gu n t h rough t h e arm restan d exi t ed the vehi c l e . Butb y t he t i m e he r e ac he d t he hous e , t he gar ag e doo rw as a l m o s tc l o s e d,
so he r et urned t o t he c ar , and t he gr oup dr ove aw ay. L a ter th a t nigh t, C orm i er a n dR i ce ca m e u p w i th a p l a n to ord er p i zza to
an aba n don ed h ou se and th e n s te alt h e del ivery m an ’ s pi zza, m on ey, an d car. C orm i er c al l ed the pi zza rest au ran tbu tl earn ed t h at t h ey di d n otdel iver af t er 9 p . m.T h e g rou p the n de ci d ed to drive to a g roce rys tore to g et som eth i n g to ea t. W he n t he yr e a c h e dt h e p a r k i n gl o t , Ri c e s p o t t e da n o l d e rc o u p l e , wh o m t he group f ol l ow ed h om e. O n t h e w ay, t h ey di scussed w rapp i n g t h e couple i n du ct t ap e an d taki n g t h ei r m on ey an d c ar. A t t h e coup l e’ s h ou se, R i ce and H ayw ard
e xi t e d t h e v e h i c l e a n d r a n t o wa r d t h e i r t a r g e t s . As Ri c e a n d Ha y war d a pproach ed, t h e el derl y m an pu l l ed out h i s ph on e an d t h reat en ed t o cal lt h e pol i ce. R i ce and H ayw ard then ret reat ed to G u i dry’ s c ar. N ext, t h e group drove t o a conven i en ce st ore at a gas s t ati on w h ere one of Boo ke r ’ s f

r i e nds , D ani alRey no l ds , w as w o r ki n g. Af t e rf o urm e m be r s o f

t he g r o u p e n te r e dth e s to r e , C o r m ie ra s k e dR e y n o ld s w h e th e rth e yco u ldro b h im
an d l aterspl i tt h e prof i t s. R eyn ol ds seem ed to thi n k she w as joki n g an d d i sreg a r d e dth e p r o p o s a l. Fi nal l y, onl y a few m i nute s l at er , A m anda W ee ks appro ac hed t he gas s t atio n in h e rc a r , a n dR ic e o r d e r e dS ta n to n t o p a r k a c r o s s t h e s tr e e t s o t h e yco u ld
o bs e r ve W e e ks

. Af

t e rW e e ks us e d he rde bitc ar d t o pa y f o rg as , Ri c e t o l d St anto n to fo llo w h e rh o m e s o t h e yc o u lds te a l h e rm o n e ya n dc a r . W h ile t h e ca rfo llo w e dW e e k s , R ic e o n c e a g a in re tr ie v e dh is g u n fr o m b e h in dth e a r m r e s t. Case: 09-40116 Document: 00511109161 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/12/2010N o. 09- 40116

3 W h e n W e e k s a r r iv e da th e rr e s i d e n c e a n do p e n e dh e rc a rd o o r , s h e s a w a
m an , l ateri den t i f

i ed as R i ce, w al k up an d poi n t a gu n at h er h ead

. H e t ol d h er t o geti n t o t h e passen ger seat , t h en shoved her i n t o it. R ice d rove W eeks to a nearby A TM and or der ed her t o sw i t c h se at s and w i t hdraw as m uch m oney as p o s s ib le

. H e a ls o to ld h e r n o t to d o a n y th in g s tu p id a n d th a t h e h a d“d o n e th is bef ore. ” W eeks w i t h drew $20 0 an d ga ve i tt o R i ce. Ri c e dr o ve t o ane arbyc r e di tuni o n an d t ol d W e e ks t hathe w as ke e pi ng h er c ar to w i pe of

f fi n gerpri n t s. H e ord ered h er ou tof the car, tol d h er t o l i e on t he gr ound un t i lhe l ef t , and dr ove aw ay. T h rough o u t th e in cid e n t, S ta n to n , C o rm ier , B o o k e r, H a y w a rd, an d G u i dry f ol l ow ed R i ce and W eeks i n G u i dry’ s car. A f t er R i ce d ropped off

W eeks, t h e res t of t he gr oup s t opped i n f r ontof hi m atan underpas s. Ri c e g ave C orm i er$20, and B oo kergo ti n W ee ks’ s c arw i t h R i c e. They proc ee ded t o t ake her c arto an aba n don ed h ou se, w h ere the group st ol e vari ou s it em s f rom t h e car an d w i ped
o f f f i nge r pr i nt s . W he n t he y r e t ur n ed t o G ui dr y’ s t r ail e r , Ri c e t o o k t he g un i nsi de, an d B ooker h i d i tun der t h e sofa cush i on s. A ft er re view i n g v i d e o tap e from the ga s station , po l i ce offi cers w en t t o G u i dry’ s t rai l er. W h en t h ey en t ered, on e o ffi ce r observedR i ce and H ayw ard pus hi ng dow n into t h e c o uc h c us hi o ns . H e o r de r e d t he m t o s t andup, a nd t he ot h er of f i cers soon di scovered t h e gu n usedt o rob W eeks the night bef ore. B ooker, G u i dry, an d S tan t on gave w ri t t en st atem en t s t o t h e pol i ce r ega r di ng t he i ri nvo lve m e nti n t he i nc i de nt
. Theya l li ndi c at e d t hatRi c e he l d t he gu n t o W eeks’ s h ead a n d t ook h er car a n d m on ey. C orm i er st ated t h at s h e rem e m be r e d v i s i t i ng t he ga s s t at i o n wi t h t he o t he r s b utg o tt i r e d o f w ait i ng and slept th rou gh the en ti re incid en t. Case: 09-40116 Document: 00511109161 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/12/2010N o. 09- 40116

4 II. A

. R i ce, C orm i er, H a yw a rd , B oo k er, S tan ton , a n d G u i d ry w ere ch a rg ed w i th
c o ns pi r ac y t o c o m m i tc arj ac ki ng i n v i o l at i o n o f 1 8 U

. S. C. § 3 71 , c arj ac ki ng and ai di ng anda be t t i ng a c arj ac ki ng i n vi o l at i o n of 18 U

. S. C. §§ 2 and 211 9( 1) , a nd b ra n d i sh i n g an d a i d i n g a n dab etti n g th e b ra n d i sh i n g o f a f i rea rm i n relati on to a carj acking i n vi ol ati on of 18 U

. S

. C

. §§ 2 and 924 (c) ( 1)

. R i ce w as al so c h arged
w ith b e in gafe lon in p o ss e ss ion o f a fire a rm in v iola tion of 1 8 U .S .C

. § 9 2 2 (g)(1). Bef o r e t he t r i alo f

Ri c e a nd Co r m i e r , t he g o ve r nm e ntg av e no t i c e o f i t s i nt en tt o i n t rodu ce evi den ce of R i ce’ s ext ri n si c cri m es, w rongs, or bad act s un der F e d e r a lR u l e o f

E v i d e n c e 4 0 4 (b )

. T h o s e o t h e ra c t s i n c l u d e d( 1 ) a r o b b e r yh e c o mm i t t e d i n Augus t2 00 2; ( 2) a ro bb e r y he co m m i t t e d i n Oct o be r2 00 2 ataD o m i no’ s P i zza resta u ra n t, f or w h i ch h e w a s sen ten ced to fift ee n ye a rs’i m p ri son m en t;
an d ( 3) a robb ery h e com m i t t ed i n Ju l y 200 7, at a seaf ood rest au ran t , f

or w h i ch
a tr ia l w a s p e n d in gin s ta te co u r t. A f t er bri ef i n g, thedi st ri ctcourtrul ed that i tw ou l d ad m i tevi den ce of t h ose a c ts fo rth e p u r p o s e o f p r o v in gin te n t. I t a ls o fo u n dt h a t t h e g o v e r n m e n t’s e v ide nc e o f

t he s e ve r alunc har ged a t t e m pt e d r o bb e r i e s dur i ng t he ni ghto f t he
c h a r g e do ffe n s e s w a s a d m is s ib le a s in tr in s ic e v id e n c e . A l so bef ore t ri al , R i ce m oved t o sever t h e cha rge of bei n g a fel on i n possessi on o f a f i r ear m . H e re ques t ed t hatt he c our tc onducta s epar at e t r i alon t hat
c o unto rb i f

ur c at e hi s t r i al

. The di s t r i c tc o ur tde ni e d t hatm o t i o n. S everalday s l ater , R i ce’ s c ou n selw i t h drew at R i ce’ s requ est , an d t h e di st r i c t c o ur t al l o w e d Ri c e t o pr o c e e d pro sew i t h a p p o i n t e dc o u n s e la s s t a n d b y . At
a pr e t r i alhe ar i ng, W e e ks he ar d Ri c e s pe aka ndi nf o r m e d t he pr o s e c ut o rt hats he
c o u ldid e n tit yh is v o ic e a s b e lo n g in gto th e p e r s o n w h o ca rja c k e dh e r . T h e prosecuti on t h en i n f orm ed R i ce and t h e courtof i t s i n t en tt o i n t rodu ce W e e k s ’ s v o ic e id e n tific a tio n . R ic e u n s u c c e s s fu llym o v e dto s u p p r e s s th a t e v iCase: 09-40116 Document: 00511109161 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/12/2010N o. 09- 40116

5 d e n c e . T h e co u r t t h e n a llo w e d R ic e to cr o s s -e x a m in e W e e k s re g a r d in gh e rre c o ll ect i on o f

thec arj ac ki ng. Af

t e rc r oss- exam i n ati on , t h e di st ri ctcourtrec on si dered Ri c e ’ s m o t i o n t o s upp r e s s a nd d e ni e d ito nc e a ga i n. Sh or t l y be f

or e t r i al , t he pr os ec ut orof fer ed Corm i era pl ea agr ee m entt hat
w as c o nt i nge nto n Ri c e ’ s m ak i ng a j o i nt pl e a. Al t ho ugh Cor m i e r hadr ej e c t e d a p le a o ffe r , s h e in d ic a te dh e rw is h t o a c c e p t th e n e w t e r m s , b u t R ic e w a s n o t w illi ng t o pl e adg ui l t y. Con s e que nt l y, Cor m i e rw as no ta bl e to t ak e t he g o ve r nm en t ’ s of

fer. A t t ri al , t h e govern m en t of fered t h e t est i m on y of D et ect ive A l t on B ai se. The pr o s e c ut o ra s ke d Bai s e w he t he rhe b e l i e ve d C o r m i e r ’ s st at e m e ntt hats he sl ept t h rough t h e i n ci d e n t. H e i n di cat ed that he did not bel i eve h er, an d C orm i er m ad e no obj ect i on . Th e governm en tt h en of fere d tes t i m on y f

rom W eeks, R e y n o ld s , a n dth e fo u ro th e rco -c o n s p ir a to r s . D u r in gc lo s in ga r g u m e n t s , t h e p r o s e c u t o rr e m in d e d th e ju r yo f W e e k s ’s t est i m on y t h at her assai l an tsaid he h ad “ don e t h i s bef ore. ” Th e prosecutort h en s u g g e s te dth a t, b e c a u s e R ic e w a s th e o n lym e m b e ro f th e g r o u p w h o h a dp r e v ious ly be en c onvi c t ed o f robb er y, the as sa i l ant ’ s s t at em enth el ped t o pro ve t hat R ic e w a s th e o n e h o ld in gth e g u n to W e e k s ’ s h e a d

. T h e r e w a s n o o bje c tio n . T h e ju r yc o n v ic t e dR ic e a n dC o r m ie ro n a llc o u n t s . T h e c o u r td e n ie dR ic e ’s
m o tio n fo ran e w tr ia l.

B

. O n appeal , R i c e ar gues t hat ( 1) t he gov er nm entc om m i t t ed pr os ec ut or i al
m i s c o nduc t by s ugg e s t i ng t hatt he j ur y c o ul d c o ns i de rhi s pr e vi o us r o bb e r y c o nv ic tio n s to p r o v e id e n tit y ; (2 ) th e d is tr ic t c o u r tim p r o p e r lya d m itt e de x tr in s ic
e v id e n c e o f th o s e ro b b eries to p r o v e in te n t; (3 ) th e co u r t im p r o p e r lya d m itt e de v iden ce of ot h er of

fen ses l ead i n g u p to the carj acking as i n t ri n si c t o t h e charged cri m es; ( 4) t h e courterroneou sl y den i ed R i ce’ s m ot i on t o sever t h e fel on - i n - posCase: 09-40116 Document: 00511109161 Page: 5 Date Filed: 05/12/2010N o. 09- 40116

6 s e s s i o n c har ge ; ( 5) t he g o ve r nm e ntv i o l at e d Bra dyv . Mar y landby fai l i n g t o prov id e R ic e w ith e v id e n c e o f aw itn e s s ’ s p r e v io u s c o n v ic tio n s ; (6 ) th e c o u r t e r r e din
a d m itt in g v o ic e id e n tific a tio n e v id e n c e fr o m W e e k s ; a n d (7 ) th e c o u r t er r e din den yi n g a m ot i on f

or a m i st ri alon t h e b asi s of W eeks’ s pu rport edl y perj u red t esti m on y. C orm i er con ten d s th a t (1) th e d i stri ct cou rt erred i n all ow i n g B a i se to give hi s o pi ni o n o f

he rt r ut hf

ul ne s s ; and ( 2) t he g o ve r nm e ntc o m m i t t e d p r o s e c uto r ia l m is c o n d u c t b yo ffe r in gh e rap le a d e a l co n tin g e n t o n R ic e ’ s jo in t p le a .
III. W er e vi e w adi s t r i c tc o urt ’ s r espon se t o al l egati on s of prosecutori alm i s c o ndu ctf or abu se of

di scr et i on , f

or w h i ch a defenda n tm u stsh ow tha t(1) the p rosec ut orm ade a n i m pro perr em a rk a nd ( 2) t he r em ar k af fec t ed hi s subs t ant i al
r ig h ts
. S eeUn itedS ta tes v. G ra cia , 5 2 2 F .3 d5 9 7 , 6 0 0 n .2 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). W e a ls o a p p ly a n a b u s e -o f-d is c r e tio n s ta n d a r dto e v id e n tia r yru lin g s , Un i t ed S t ate s v . R agsd a le , 426 F

. 3d 765 , 774 ( 5th C i r. 200 5) , t o t h e den i al of a m ot i on f or s evera n c e , Uni t e d St at e s v . Ho l lo w ay , 1 F .3 d 3 0 7 , 3 1 0 (5 th C ir

. 1 9 9 3 ), a n d to th e d e n ia l o f a m o tio n fo r n e w tr ia l o n th e b a s is o f p e rju r y , Jo hns o n v . Of f s ho r eExp lo r at i on , I n c. , 8 4 5 F .2 d1 3 4 7 , 1 3 5 7 -5 9 (5 th C ir . 1 9 8 8 ). W h e th e rid e n t i f i c a t io n e v iden ce c om ports w i t h du e process i s a m i xedqu est i on of l aw an d factt h at w e rev i e w de no vo . Un i t ed S t ate s v. Hon er , 2 2 5 F .3d 5 4 9 , 5 5 2 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 0 ). W h e r e a n e r r o ri s n o tc o n t e mp o r a n e o u s l yo bj e c t e dt o a tt r i a l , h o we v e r , we
r e v ie w o n lyfo rp la in e r r o r . Un i t ed S t ate s v. G allard o- Trapero , 185 F. 3d 307, 321 ( 5t h Ci r . 1 99 9)

. To m e e t t hat m o r e s t r i nge nt s t and ar d, a de fe nda ntm us tde m o nst r at e t hat( 1) t her e w as er r or , def i ned as a de vi at i on f

r om a l egalr ul e; ( 2) i tw as pl ai n, def

i ned as ob vi ous ; and ( 3) i taf fec t ed hi s subs t ant i alr i ght s, def i ned as p r eju d ic ia llya ffe c tin gth e o u tc o m e o f th e tr ia l. Id

. at 322
. R eversibl e pl ai n err or is th a t w h ic h s e r io u s lya ffe c ts t h e fa ir n e s s , in te g r ity , o rp u b lic r e p u ta tio n o f ju d ic ia l p r o c e e d in g s . I

d. Case: 09-40116 Document: 00511109161 Page: 6 Date Filed: 05/12/2010N o. 09- 40116

7 I V. Ri c e r ai s e s s e ve n i s s ue s o n a ppe al , Cor m i e rt w o . W e f i r s ta ddr e s s t he
c la im s m a d e b yR i c e a n dth e n th o s e m a d e b yC o r m ie r , fo llo w in gth e o r d e rin
w h ic h th e a r g u m e n ts a r e p r e s e n te d

.
A

. 1
. R i c e c l ai m s t he gover nm entcom m i t t ed pro se c ut or i alm i sc onductby suggest i n g t h at t h e j u ry con si der h i s p revi ou s robbery convic t i on s f or the pu rpose of i den t i f i cat i on . Th ere i s no reversibl e err or. I n ac c or dance w i t h Feder al R ul e o f E vi denc e 4 04(b) , t he go ver nm entgave R i ce noti ce of

i t s i n t en tt o i n t rodu ce ext ri n si c evi d e n ce of hi s previ ou s c on vi ct i o ns . Atar ul e 4 04 (b) he ar i ng, t he g o ve r nm e nta r gue d t hatRi c e ’ s r o bb e r y c o nvi ct i on s w ere adm i ssibl e t o prove t h at he act ed w ith t h e l egally- requ i red l evel of i n t e n tan d that he w as t h e person w h o hel d the gu n t o W eeks’ s head

. O ver R i ce’ s ob j ection , the distri ct cou rt ru l ed th e con victi on s ad m i ssible “for t h e li m i te d p ur po s e s o f

de t e r m i ni ng t he i nt e nt e xc e pt i o n unde r 40 4(b)

. ” The c o ur tde c i de d, ho w e ve r , t hatt he c o nvi c t i o ns w e r e no tadm i s s ibl e t o pr o ve t he i de nt i t y o f t he
ca rj a ck er, b eca u se th eyw ere n ot su ff i ci en tly sim i la rto th e ch a rg ed cri m es to q u a lifyforth e ide n tityex ce p tion u n d e r r u le 4 0 4 (b ). D ur i ng c l o s i ng ar gum e nt s , t he pr o s e c ut o rb e ga n c o m m e nt i ng o n ho w t he j ur y c o ul d i de nt i f

y Ri c e a s t he c arj ac ke r , t he n s t at e d, A n d an ot h er th in gI w a n tyou t o rem em ber, l ad i es and gen t l em an , i s a very i m portant s t atem en t t h at w as m ad e du ri n g t h i s c arj ack i n g w as SSby the person w h o di d h ol d thi s gun t o M s. W eeks’ h e a dw a s “I ’v e d o n e th is b e fo r e .” Y ou h eard t est i m on y f rom four other co- defenda n t s. N obod y el se h as been convic t ed of a robbery. N o ot h er evi den ce of an y ot h er pers o n ha s e ve rhe l d ag un t o a nyb o dy ’ s he ad , b u tthi s m an s i t t i ng Case: 09-40116 Document: 00511109161 Page: 7 Date Filed: 05/12/2010N o. 09- 40116

8 r ig h t h e r e . L a d ie s a n dg e n tle m e n o f th e ju r y , I s u b m it to y o u t h a t th a t in d icat es and sup ports M s. W eeks’t est i m on y t h at John F i t zgeral d R i ce, J r. i s th e p erso n w h o h eld h er a t gu n p oin t. D u r i n gi t s r e b u t t a lc l o s i n ga r g u me n t , t h e g o v e r n me n tr e t u r n e dt o t h e s a me p oin t: L ad i es and gen t l em en , t h ere w ere SSyo u he ar d t hatt he de fe nda nt w as c o nvi c t e d o f

s o m e c r i m e s . You c an us e t ho s e c r i m e s , as [t he o t he rp r o s e c u to r] d is c u s s e dw ith y o u , t o d e c id e t h e r o b b e rw a s th e o n ly on e w h o ha d d on e this b ef ore, com m i t t ed robberi es bef ore. Th e defe nda ntw as t he o nl y o ne t he r e i s a ny evi de nc e o f c o m m i t t i ng any ot herr obbe r y. R ic e a r g u e s th a t t h o s e s ta te m e n ts e x c e e d e dth e lim ite dp u r p o s e fo rw h ic h e v iden ce of hi s previ ou s r obberi es w as adm i t t ed an d am ou n t s t o p rosec u t ori alm i scond u ctt h at af

fect s hi s s u bstanti alri gh t s. R i ce’ s pre- t ri al obj ect i on w as n ot suff i ci en t t o preserve t h e cl ai m ofprosec ut or i alm i sc onduct

. To pre se r ve an ar gum entf orappeal , an obj ec t i on m ustbe
c o n te m p o r a n e o u s t o t h e a lle g e de r r o r . Un i t ed S t ate s v. Mares , 402 F. 3d 511, 515 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). R ic e m a d e n o o bje c tio n to th e p r o s e c u to r ’ s co m m e n ts d u r in ge it h er t h e cl osi n g argu m en t or rebu t t al

. Th eref ore, w e revi ew onl y f

or pl ai n err or. R i ce has dem on st rat ed that t h e prosecutor ’ s c om m en t s r egard i n g t h e use of ext ri n si c evi den ce to prove i den t i t y w ere error . In t h e firstst atem en tqu ot ed abov e, t h e prosecutorargu ed that R i ce w as the on l y on e w h o ha d been convi ct ed of r obbe r y, s o t he as sa i l ant ’ s st at em entt hathe had “ done t hi s bef or e” s how s t hat R i ce “i s t h e person w h o hel d [W eeks] at gun poi n t
. ” D u ri n g t h e governm en t ’ s r ebut t al , t he pr o s e c ut o rt o l d t he j ur y t hat i tc o ul d us e Ri c e ’ s pr e vi o us c o nvi c t i o ns t o de c i de w he t he rt he r o bb e ri n t he pr e s e ntc as e w as t he o nl y o ne i n t he g r o up
w ho had c om m i t t ed r obbe r i es be f or e. G iven t hat t he c our thad s pec i f i c al l y e xcl u ded i den t i t y as a proper pu rpose forintr odu ci n g extr i n si c evi den ce of t h e previ ou s r o b b e r i e s , t he p r o s e c ut o r ’ s s ug g e s t i o n t ha t t ho s e r o b b e r i e s he l p t o pr ove Case: 09-40116 Document: 00511109161 Page: 8 Date Filed: 05/12/2010N o. 09- 40116

9 th a t R ic e w a s th e ca rja c k e rco n s tit u te dtr ia l e r r o r . E ven as sum i ng argue ndo t h at that error w as p l ai n , h ow ever, R i ce c an n ot sh ow tha t t h e rem a rk s affectedh i s su b stan ti a lrigh ts. A l th ou gh the com m en ts
w ere er roneou s, t h ey w ere m i n i m al a n d h arm l ess i n t h e contextof t h e enti re t r i al

. The s t at em ent s occu p y onl y a few l i nes i n a r ec or d t hats pans s eve r al t ho us andpa ge s . M o r e i m po r t ant l y, t he pr o s e c ut i o n pr e s e nt e d o ve r w he l m i ng evi den ce t h at R i ce w as t h e one w h o carj acked W eeks, i n cl u di n g consi st en tst atem en t s and t est i m on y f rom hi s acc om pl i ces, t est i m on y f rom t h e l ead pol i ce i n vest i ga t o r , a nd vo i c e i de nt i f i c at i o n b y t he v i c t i m . The r e i s no t hi ng ne arar e as o na b le p o s s ib ilityth a t, w ith o u t t h e p r o s e c u to r ’ s im p r o p e rs ta te m e n ts , R ic e w o u ld hav e b e e n a c quit t e d o f a ny c har ge . Ther e f

o r e , t he cl ai m o f

pr o s e c ut o r i alm i s c o nd u c t d o e s n o t s u r v iv e p la in e r r o rre v ie w .
2
. R i c e a r gues t hatt he di st r i c tc our tabused its di sc r et i on i n adm i t t i ng extri n sic ev i d en ce of h i s p rev i ou s rob b eries for t h e p u rp ose of p rov i n g in te n t. T h e r e is n o re v e r s ib le e r r o r . R ul e 4 04(b ) gov er ns t he adm i ss ibi l i t y o f ev i denc e o f

pr i orc r i m es orbad act s: E vi denc e o f ot herc r i m es , w r ongs , orac t s i s notadm i ss ibl e t o p rov e th e ch a ra cter of a p erso n in o rd er to sh ow action i n con form i ty t h erew i t h

. I tm ay, how ever, be adm i ssibl e forother pu rposes, such a s p r o o f o f m o t i v e , o p p o r tu n ity , in te n t, p r e p a r a tio n , p la n , k n o w ledg e, i den t i t y, or absen ce of m i st ak e or acci den t , p rovi ded tha tup on requ estby the accused, t h e prosecuti on i n a cr i m i n al case s h al lprovi de reason able n ot i ce i n adv an ce of t ri al , or du ri n g t ri ali f t h e court excuses pretr i alnoti ce on good cau se s h ow n , of the gen eralna t u re o f a n ys u c h e v id e n c e it in te n d s to in tr o d u c e a t t r ia l. F ED . R . E VID
. 4 04 (b)

. I n Uni t e d St at e s v . Be e c hum , 582 F

. 2d 898 , 911 ( 5th C i r. 1 9 7 8 ) (e n b a n c ), th is co u r tl a i d o u t t h e tw o -s te p te s t fo ra d m is s io n o f e x tr in s ic Case: 09-40116 Document: 00511109161 Page: 9 Date Filed: 05/12/2010N o. 09- 40116

See United States v. Gutier rez-Farias , 29 4 F .3d 6 57, 663 -64 (5thC ir. 2 002) (stating 1 that abuseof discretion in admittingevidence does not require reversal where there is no re aso n ab lep os sib ilityth at the improp erlya dmitte d evidencecontrib ute d toth e conviction). 10 evi den ce of

pri or of fen ses or ot h er m i scondu ctun der rul e 404 (b)

. “Fir st , itm u st be determ i n ed that th e ext ri n si c of fen se evi den ce i s r el evan tt o an i ssue ot h er t han t he def

endant ’ s c harac t er . Sec ond, th e evi denc e m ustpos se ss pr obat ive value t h at i s n otsu bstanti al l y ou t w ei gh ed by i t s u n du e p rej u di ce and m u stm eet th e oth er re q u i rem en ts of ru l e 4 0 3
. ” I d. Ri c e c l ai m s t hathi s pr e vi o us r o bb e r i e s w e r e no ts uf f i c i e nt l y s i m i l art o t he
c h a r g e dcr im e s to b e re le v a n t a n dw e r e to o re m o te in tim e to b e p r o b a tiv e o f h is g u ilt. E v e n i f

w e w e r e to a g r e e th a t t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t a b u s e dits d is c r e tio n in
a d m i tti n g th e ex tri n sic ev i d en ce, R i ce ca n n ot sh ow tha t his su b stan tia lri gh ts
w e r e p r eju d ic e d . A s n o te da b o v e , t h e p r o s e c u tio n p r e s e n te do v e r w h e lm in ge v ide nc e o f hi s gui l ton al lcha r ge s . Bec aus e he s uf fe r e d no pr ej udi c e f

r o m t he a dm i ssi on of

ex t ri n si c evi den ce, a n y erroru n der rul e 4 04(b) w as h arm l ess an d d oes
n o t r e q u ir e re v e r s a l. 1

3
. R i c e c ont ends t he di st r i c tc our ter r ed i n adm i t t i ng evi denc e o f t he s eve r al
u n i n di ct ed of

fen ses h e a n d h i s co- conspir ator s com m i t t ed on t h e ni gh tof t h e carj a ck i n g. S p ecif

i ca l l y, t h e g ov ern m en t i n trod u ced ev i d en ce th a t t h e g rou p ( 1 ) a tt em pted t o rob a w om an w h o ha d j u stw on a pri ze pl aying bi n go; ( 2) t ri ed t o rob
a pizza de l iv erym a n ; ( 3 ) a ttem p tedto rob an elder l y co u p l e R i ce sp ottedat a gr oc er y s t or e; and ( 4) s oughtt o r ob a c onveni enc e st or e. Th e c our t f ound t hatev i den ce of

t h ose of

fen ses h el ped t o expl ai n how t h e conspi racy cam e t oge t h er, p l a c e dt h e c h a r g e dc r i me s i n c o n t e x t , a n dc o mp l e t e dt h e s t o r yb e h i n dt h e c r i min a l a c tiv ity

. T h e co u r t t h e r e fo r e a llo w e dth e p r o s e c u tio n to p r e s e n t t h a t e v iden ce, hol di n g t h at t h ose of fen ses w ere “i n t ri n si c” t o t h e charged cr i m es. Case: 09-40116 Document: 00511109161 Page: 10 Date Filed: 05/12/2010N o. 09- 40116

11 T o d e t e r mi n e wh e t h e r“ o t h e ra c t s ” e v i d e n c e wa s e r r o n e o u s l ya d mi t t e d , we
m u st fi r stdec i de w het hert he e vi denc e w as i nt r i nsi c orex t r i nsi c . “ ‘ O t herac t’
e vi de nc e i s ‘ i nt r i ns i c ’w he n t he e vi de nc e o f t he o t he ra c ta nd t he e vi de nc e o f t he
c r im e ch a r g e da r e ‘ in e x tr ic a b lyin te r tw in e d ’o rb o th a c ts a r e p a r t o f a‘ s in g le
c r im in a l e p is o d e ’o rth e o th e ra c ts w e r e ‘ n e c e s s a r yp r e lim in a r ie s ’to th e cr im e ch a rg ed

. ” Un i t e dS t a t e s v . Wi l l i a ms , 9 0 0 F .2 d8 2 3 , 8 2 5 (5 th C ir

. 1 9 9 0 ). In tr in s ic
e v id e n c e is a d m is s ib le to “c o m p le te th e s to r y o f th e c r im e b y p r o v in g th e im m e d ia te con tex t of

ev en ts i n ti m e a n dplace , ” Uni t e d St at e s v . Cole m an , 78 F. 3d 154, 156 ( 5th C i r. 199 6) , an d t o “eval u ate al lof t h e circum st an ces u n der w h i ch the defe n d a n t a c te d ,” Un ited S ta tes v . R a n d a ll , 8 8 7 F .2d 1 2 6 2 , 1 2 6 8 (5t h C ir. 1 9 8 9 ). Intr i n si c evi den ce does not i m pli c ate r u l e 404 (b) , an d “c on si derati on of i t s adm i ssibi l i ty p u rsu a n t t o [t h a t rule] i s u n n ece ssa ry . ” Un ited S ta tes v . G a rc ia , 27 F. 3d 1 0 0 9 , 1 0 1 4 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 4 ). O urdi s c us s i o n i n Cole m an , 78 F. 3d at156, i s par t i c ul ar l y i nst r uct ive as t o w he t he rt he di s t r i c tc o ur t pr o pe r l y c at e go r i z e d t he o t he r o f fe ns e s l e ad i ng up t o t h e carj acking as “ i n t ri n si c. ” I n t h at c ase, t h e governm en tof fered evi den ce t hatt he def

endant s had at t em pt ed t o carj ac k t w o l uxury c ar s ear l i eri n t he day b e fo r e e v e n tu a llyca rja c k in gaM e r c e d e s . Id

. T h e cou rt f ou n dtha t evide n ce to be “i nt r i ns i c , ” b e c aus e i t“he l pe d p l ac e the e nt i r e e ve nt s o f t he e ve ni ng i n c o ntex t. ” Id

. Cole m an ’ s r e as o ni ng ap pl i e s e qua l l y t o t hi s ca s e . Ri c e ’ s f o uruns uc c e s s f

ul
ro bbery att em pts an d the carj acking of W eeks occurred w i t h i n a few hou rs of each other an d i n volvedt h e sam e group of co- conspir ator s. Presen t ati on of t h ose p r e v i o u s a t t e mp t s h e l p e dt h e g o v e r n me n tt o p a i n tt h e p i c t u r e o f ag r o u p c o mm i t t ed to robbi n g som eon e t h at n i gh t an d t o exp l ai n h ow an d w h y t h ey deci ded t o vi ct i m i ze W eeks. E vi den ce of t h e ot h er act s w as intr i n si c, b ecau se i tal l ow ed t h e g overnm en tto tel lthe w h ol e stor y of a u n i f i ed cri m i n alep i sode. T h e court d idn o t a b u s e its d is c r e tio n . Case: 09-40116 Document: 00511109161 Page: 11 Date Filed: 05/12/2010N o. 09- 40116

12 4
. R i ce posi t s t h at t h e di st ri ctcourtabu sed i t s di scr et i on i n den yi n g h i s m ot i o n t o s e ve rt he c har ge o f unl awf ul po s s e s s i o n o f a f

i r e ar m b y a c o nvi c t e d f e l o n. The di s t r i c tc o ur tc o r r e c t l y f o und, ho w e ve r , t hatj o i nde ro f hi s c har ge s w as a ppro pri at e underFeder alR ul e o f C r i m i nalP r oc edur e 8( a) an d thats eve r ance w as
n o t r e q u ir e du n d e rF e d e r a l R u le o f C r im in a l P r o c e d u r e 1 4 (a ). Rul e 8 ( a) pr o vi de s t hat a de fe nda nt m ay be c har ge d i n as i ngl e i ndi c t m e nt f or t w o or m ore of

fen ses i f

t h ey ( 1) are of t h e sam e or si m i l ar character ; ( 2) are b a sed on the sam e a ct or t r a n s a c tio n ; or (3) a re co n n ected w i th or con sti tu te p a r ts o f a c o m m o n s c h e m e o rp la n . F ED . R . C RIM
. P

. 8( a)

. O n ce iti s det erm i n ed t hatj o i nde ri s pr o pe r , t he di s t r i c tc o ur tm us tdec i de w he t he ri tc aus e s s uf f i c i e nt p r eju d ic e to re q u ir e s e v e r a n c e u n d e rru le 1 4 (a ). S e v e r a n c e is re q u ir e do n lyin
ca ses of “com p ell i n g p reju d i ce.” Un i t ed Stat es v. McI n t osh , 65 5 F

. 2 d80 , 84 ( 5 th C ir . U n it AS e p t. 1 9 8 1 ). A l lof t h e charged of

fen ses, i n cl u di n g bei n g a fel on i n possess i on of a f i rea r m , w e r e b a s e do n th e s a m e c r im in a l e p is o d e , s o jo in d e r w a s p r o p e r u n d e rru le 8 (a ). In a d d itio n , R ic e fa ils to s h o w s p e c ific a n dco m p e llin gp r eju d ic e th a t w o u ld
w a r r a n t r e v e r s a l. G iv e n th e o v e r w h e l m in ge v id e n c e o f h is g u ilt, it is u n lik e ly t hatt he fe l o n- i n- po s s e s s i o n c har ge ha d a ny e f fe c to n t he j ur y’ s e va l uat i o n o f t he
o th e rc h a r g e s . M o r e o v e r , t h e ju d g e g a v e a d e ta ile dlim itin gin s tr u c tio n to m in im i z e t he c hanc e o f i m pr o pe r c o ns i de r at i o n o f hi s pr e vi o us c o nvi c t i o ns . Suc h i ns t r uc t i o ns ar e ge ne r al l y “ s uf f i c i e ntt o pr e ve ntt he t hr e atof pr ej udi c e r e s ul t i ng from u n sev ere dtri a l s. ” Uni t e d St at e s v . Mas s ey , 8 2 7 F .2d 995 , 100 5 ( 5th C i r. 198 7)

. Th eref

ore, t h e courtdi d n ot abu se it s di scr et i on i n den yi n g a severan ce.

5
. Ri c e ar gue s t hatt he g o ve r nm e ntv i o l at e d Bra dy v . Mar y land , 373 U

. S. 83 ( 19 63 ) , b y fail i ng t o di s c l o s e Boo ke r ’ s pr i o rj uve ni l e a dj udi c at i o ns a nd a dul tc o nCase: 09-40116 Document: 00511109161 Page: 12 Date Filed: 05/12/2010N o. 09- 40116

Ricedidnot rais e anobj ectionba se d onFederal Ruleof Evidence9 0 1 (b)( 5) inth e di s- 2 trict court, and his brief onapp ealdoe s not sufficientlyraise the issue so a s to warrant our re view for pl ainerror . See F ED . R. APP . P. 28(a)(9)(A) (requiring that appell ant’s b rief cont ain his “contention s an d the re ason s for them, with citation s to the authorities and parts of the recordonwhichth e app ellant relies”)

. Accor din gly , wea ddre ss onlyRic e’ s du e proc es s claim

. 13 v i c t i o n s . Or d i n a r i l y , we r e v i e w B rady qu est i on s de no vo . Uni t e d St at e s v . Runy an , 2 9 0 F .3 d 2 2 3 , 2 4 5 (5 th C ir

. 2 0 0 2 ). B radycl a i m s, h ow ev er, “pre sen t fa ctbas ed j udgm ent s t hatc annotbe adeq uat ely f i r stm ade o n a p p e l l at e r evi ew . That i s w hy B rady c hall e nge s m us t be b r o ugh tt o t he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s a t t e nt i o n, w i nn ow ed byt h e t ri al j u dg e, an d m ad e pa rt of t h e recor d t h rough a m ot i on f or new tr ia l.” Un i t ed S t ate s v. G on zales , 436 F

. 3d 560 , 580 ( 5th C i r. 200 6)

. R i ce di d n ot
c al lupo n t he di s t r i c tc o ur tt o dec i de w he t he rt he go ve r nm e ntha d v i o l at e d Bra

dy , nordi d he m o ve t o r e o pe n t he v e r di c t
. Bec aus e he ne ve rpr o pe r l y r ai s e d a ny Bra dyis s u e s in th e d is tr ic t c o u r t, w e d e c lin e to re v ie w th o s e is s u e s o n a p p e a l.

6
. R i ce avers t h at W eeks’ s voi ce i den t i f i cat i on t est i m on y vi ol ated du e process . For a pa rt i cul ar i den t i f i cat i on t o vi ol ate du e process, i t m u stbe “ so i m per- 2
m is s ib lys u g g e s tiv e a s to g iv e r is e t o a v e r ys u b s ta n tia l lik e lih o o do f ir r e p a r a b le
m i siden tifi ca ti on . ” R o p erv. B eto , 45 4 F. 2d 49 9, 50 2 ( 5t h Ci r . 19 72) ( qu ot i ng S i m m on s v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 3 9 0 U .S

. 3 7 7 , 3 8 4 (19 6 8 )). Sever alfac t or s suppor tt he di st r i c tc our t ’ s f i ndi ng t hat W ee ks’ s i dent i f i c at i on w as rel i able. F i rst , she dem on st rat ed a h i gh l evel of cer t ai n t y regardi n g h er id e n t if ic a t io n . B o t h b e fo r e a n dd u r in gtr ia l, s h e e x p r e s s e dn o d o u b tth a tR ic e ’s voi c e w as i dent i c alt o t he c arj ac ker ’ s. Sec ond, t he e vi denc e s how ed W ee ks w as pa yi n g cl ose att en t i on t o t h e perpetrat or’ s voi ce duri n g t h e cr i m e. Sh e t est i f i ed th a t s h e r espon ded i m m edi ately t o hi s verbalcom m an ds an d w as abl e t o des c r ibe i n det ailhi s di s t i nc t ive w ayo f s pe ak i ng. Fi nall y, a l t ho ughe i ghtm o nt hs
e la p s e db e tw e e n th e in c id e n t a n dth e id e n tific a tio n , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t c o r r e c tly Case: 09-40116 Document: 00511109161 Page: 13 Date Filed: 05/12/2010N o. 09- 40116

See , e. g. , Neil v. Big

gers , 409 U.S. 1 88, 199 -200(19 72) (analyzingtot ality of the cir- 3 cu mst ance s to evalu atedu e proc es s concern s rais edb yi dentificationtes ti mo ny). 14 fo u n dth a t, g iv e n W e e k s ’ s s p e c ific a n d v iv id r e c o lle c tio n s , th e p a s s a g e o f tim e d id
n o t g iv e r is e t o a s u b s t a n t ia l lik e li h o o d o f m is id e n t if ic a t io n . T h e r e fo r e , W e e k s ’s t est i m on y di d n otvi ol ate due p roces s. 3

7
. R i ce al l eges t h at t h e di st ri ctcourterr ed i n den yi n g h i s m ot i on f or a new t r i al on t he bas i s of W ee ks’ s purpor t edl y pe rj ure d t es t i m ony. D uri ng c r os s- exam i n ati on , R i ce questi on ed W eeks abou t a ph ot o l i n eu p sh e vi ew ed at t h e pol i ce st ati on af

t er t h e i n ci den t
. R i ce asked W eeks w h et h er s h e rec ogn i zed the perpet r at or i n t he pi c t ure att he s t at i on, and s he r es ponded, “Y es , butI don’ tbe l i eve i tw as docum ent ed. ” Th e ne xtm or ni ng, R i c e unsuc c es sf ul l y r eques t ed a m i st r i al
o n th e g r o u n dth a t W e e k s h a dco m m itt e dp e rju r y , d e p r iv in gh im o f afa irtr ia l. R i ce h a s a p l a u sibl e a rg u m en t th a t W ee k s, w h eth er inten ti on a l l y o r n ot,
m ad e fal s e s t at e m e nt s o n t he w i t ne s s s t and

. She s t at e d t hat , a tt he t i m e o f t he lin e u p , sh e w a s a b le to id e n tify th e p e r p e tr a to r in th e p ic tu r e . S e r g e a n t K e v in W hi t e, how eve r , t es t i f i ed t hat W ee ks w as unabl e t o m ake a pos i t ive i dent i f i c atio n o f R ic e a t t h a t t im e . A lth o u g h W e e k s in s is te dt h a t s h e h a dm a d e th e id e n tif i cat i on , t h e rem ai n der of h er tes t i m on y i n di cat es that sh e w as n ever a bl e to get a good l ook at t h e perpetrat or’ s face. C i t i ng Un i t ed S t ate s v. Agu rs , 427 U

. S. 97 ( 19 76 ) , R i c e cl ai m s t hathi s c o nvi ct i on i s based on perj u ry an d m u st b e revers ed. Th e Agu rsC ou rt , how ever, di st i n gu i shed betw een cases i n w h i ch prosecutors act ed i n good fai t h an d those in w h ic h “a co n v ic tio n [w a s ] o b ta in e d b y th e k n o w in gu s e o f p e rju r e dte s tim o n y .” I d. at103. T he C our th el d thatonly t he l at t ers i t uat i on c ons t i t ut es pr os ec ut or i al
m i sc onductand t hatt he r es ul t i ng c onvi c t i on m ustbe setasi de if t her e i s a r easona bl e l i kelih ood that t h e fal se t est i m on y coul d h ave aff ect ed the j u dg m en tof Case: 09-40116 Document: 00511109161 Page: 14 Date Filed: 05/12/2010N o. 09- 40116

15 th e ju r y . Id

. at103- 04. Jus ta s i n Agu rs , t h ere i s n o ev i den ce that the prosecuti on kn ow i n gl y pres e n te dp e rju r e dtesti m on y. W ee k s’ s all eg ed ly p erju r e ds ta te m e n ts w e r e n o t e lic it e d b y t he go ve r nm e ntbuti ns t e adc am e i n r e s po ns e t o Ri c e ’ s c r o s s - e xa m i nat i o n. F u rth er, th ose statem en ts con fli cted w i th th e case the pr ose cu ti on w a s attem p ti ng t o b ui l d, and t hei ronly l i kel y e f fec tw as t o under m i n e W ee k s’ s c r edibi l i t y. In an y even t , given t h e ot h er overw h el m i n g evi den ce of gu i l t , i ti s hi gh l y u n l i kel y t h at W eeks’ s m i sst atem en t s h ad an y ef fecton the verdi ct
. Th e di st ri ctcourt d idn o t a b u s e its d is c r e tio n in d e n y in gan e w tr ia l.

B

. 1
. C orm i er’ s f

i rst cl a i m i s th a t t h e d i stri ct cou rt er r ed i n all ow i n g B a i se to give hi s opi ni on o f

hert r ut hf

ul nes s. At t he end of t he go ver nm ent ’ s di r ec tex am i nat i on of

B ai se , the pr os ec ut orasked w het herh e had adv i se d C or m i ert o g etan at t o r ne y be c aus e he di d notbe l i e ve he rs t at e m e ntt hats he s l e ptt hr o ught he i nc i dent

. Bai se answ er ed i n t he af f i r m at ive. Corm i erm ade no obj ec t i on att r i al
an d n ow argu es t h at t h e courtshou l d h ave excl u ded t h at answ er. A s an i ni t i alm at t er , t he r ec or d i ndi c at es t hatB ai se ’ s r es ponse w as n otan at t em ptt o o f

ferhi s opi ni on o f

C or m i er ’ s t r ut hf

ul nes s. I nst ead, i tsee m s he w as
m erely exp l ai n i n g w h y h e ha d advi sed h er t o getan att orney. C orm i er di d n ot
m ai n t ai n at t ri alt h at she s l ept t h rough t h e carj acking an d theref ore t h e prosecutor h ad no n eed to u n derm i n e h er p revi ou s accou n tof t h e even t
. U n derst ood i n p r o p e r con tex t, the ch a l l en ge dcom m en t w a s n ot op i n i on testi m on y, an di ts
a d m is s io n d o e s n o t m a n d a te am is tr ia l. Eve n a s s um i ng ( al o ng w i t h b o t h pa r t i e s ) , ho w e ve r , t hatBai s e w as o f fe r i ng hi s opi ni on as t o Cor m i er ’ s t r ut hf ul nes s, t he fai l ure t o e xc l ude t hatopi ni on w as
n otpl ai n err or. Th ere i s no reasona bl e possibi l i t y t h at B ai se’ s f l eet i n g response Case: 09-40116 Document: 00511109161 Page: 15 Date Filed: 05/12/2010N o. 09- 40116

16 h a dan y e ff

ect on the ve rd i ct.

2
. C orm i er c l ai m s t h at t h e governm en teng aged i n prosecutor i alm i scondu ct byo f fe r i ng he rapl e a de alc o nt i nge nto n Ri c e ’ s j o i ntpl e a. C o r m i e rex pr e s s e d a
w i l l i n gn ess t o acceptt h e deal, bu tR i ce r ef u sed t o pl ead gu i l t y. Th e prosecutor decl i n ed to of

fer C orm ier th e sam e t erm s f or an i n divi du alpl ea, an d the case
w en tt o t ri al

. A l t h ou gh she m ad e no obj ect i on i n t h e di st ri ct c o u rt, s h e now cl ai m s t h at t h e governm en t ’ s of fer of a j oi n tpl ea ba rgai n vi ol ated du e process . I ti s w e l les t ab l i s he d t hatt he r e i s no c o ns t i t ut i o nalr i ghtt o pl e a ba r ga i n. W eat h erf ord v. B u rsey , 4 29 U

. S. 5 45 , 5 61 ( 19 77 )

. I tf o l l o w s t hatde fe nda nt s do
no tha ve ar i ghtt o pl e a ba r ga i n i ndivi dua l l y. Cor m i e rof fe r s no r e as o n why t he gov er nm ent sho ul d be pro hibi t ed f r om c ondi t i oni ng a pl ea of feron a j oi ntpl ea, an d sh e ha d no ri gh t t o accept on l y h er porti on of t h e govern m en t ’ s of fer. M oreo ve r , c o nt r ar y t o h e rs u g g e s t i o ns , t he g o ve r nm e ntdi d no t“ c o e r c e ” he ri nt o s t and

i ng t r i al

SS sh e h a dalrea d y rej ected a p l ea o ffe ra n drem a i n ed pe rfectly free to pl e adg ui l t y t o t he c r i m e s a s c har ge d. Bec aus e t he g o ve r nm e nt ’ s of fe rof aj o i nt pl e a w as no tpr o s e c ut o r i alm i s c o nduc t , C o r m i e r ’ s se c o nd c l ai m a l s o fail s o n t he f i r s tp r o n go f

p l a i n e r r o rr e v i e w. Ri c e a nd C o r m i e rdem o ns t r at e no r e ve r s ibl e er r o r . The j udg m e nt s o f c o nv i c t i o n a r e t h e r e f

o r e A F F I RMED. Case: 09-40116 Document: 00511109161 Page: 16 Date Filed: 05/12/2010