Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Larry D. BROWN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-02-16
Citations: 120 F. App'x 558
Docket Number: No. 04-60528
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Larry D. BROWN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JONES, BARKSDALE, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 120
Pages: 558–558

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Larry D. BROWN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-60528.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Feb. 16, 2005.
Gaines H. Cleveland, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Jerry L. Rushing, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Mississippi, Gulfport, MS, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
John William Weber, III, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Mississippi, Gulfport, MS, for Defendant Appellant.
Before JONES, BARKSDALE, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Larry D. Brown appeals his conviction following a jury trial for being a felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Brown argues that the district court abused its discretion in admitting evidence of his involvement in counterfeiting and impersonation of a police officer.
Because the challenged evidence "eomplete[d] the story of the crime" and was '"inextricably intertwined'" with the evidence of the crime charged, the evidence was "intrinsic" evidence. See United States v. Coleman, 78 F.3d 154, 156 (5th Cir.1996) (citations omitted); United States v. Dale, 374 F.3d 321, 325 (5th Cir.2004), cert. granted, judgment vacated by - U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 1067, - L.Ed.2d -, 2005 WL 126586 (2005). Brown has failed to show that the district court abused its discretion in admitting this evidence, the probative value of which was not substantially outweighed by any potential for undue prejudice. See Fed. R.Evid. 403. Brown's conviction is AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.