Opinion ID: 719610
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Rodriguez's Motion to Strike Overt Acts.

Text: 30 Rodriguez challenges the district court's denial of his pretrial motion to strike as surplusage two overt acts of cocaine distribution from Count One of the superseding indictment, which charged Defendants with conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute heroin. 31 We have cautioned that [m]otions to strike surplusage from an indictment will be granted only where the challenged allegations are 'not relevant to the crime charged and are inflammatory and prejudicial.'  United States v. Scarpa, 913 F.2d 993, 1013 (2d Cir.1990) (quoting United States v. Napolitano, 552 F.Supp. 465, 480 (S.D.N.Y.1982)). Defendants' cocaine-related activity was clearly relevant evidence of the organizational structure and method of operation of their heroin conspiracy, and it also tended to establish the nature of the relationship between Defendants and their supplier of heroin, defendant Jose Antonio Hernandez. See Fed.R.Evid. 404(b) (Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is admissible as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident....); United States v. Towne, 870 F.2d 880, 886 (2d Cir.) ([E]vidence of uncharged criminal activity is [admissible] ... if it arose out of the same transaction or series of transactions as the charged offense, if it [is] inextricably intertwined with the evidence regarding the charged offense, or if it is necessary to complete the story of the crime [on] trial.) (internal quotation omitted) (some alterations in original), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1101, 109 S.Ct. 2456, 104 L.Ed.2d 1010 (1989); United States v. Percy, 765 F.2d 1199, 1204 (4th Cir.1985) (prior drug transactions admissible to show that defendant's acts were not inadvertent, accidental, unintentional or without guilty knowledge) (internal quotation omitted). Accordingly, the district court correctly denied Rodriguez's motion to strike. See United States v. Montour, 944 F.2d 1019, 1026-27 (2d Cir.1991). 32