Opinion ID: 216967
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Preliminary Finding

Text: Hardy asserts that the district court should have made a preliminary finding that the prior drug sales occurred. Hardy did not make this argument below and has therefore forfeited it on appeal. See Vance v. Wade, 546 F.3d 774, 781 (6th Cir.2008) ([T]he failure to present an issue to the district court forfeits the right to have the argument addressed on appeal.) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The argument fails anyway. See Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681, 688-89, 108 S.Ct. 1496, 99 L.Ed.2d 771 (1988) (concluding that a preliminary finding by the court that the Government has proved the act by a preponderance of the evidence is not required by the text of the rule and that similar act evidence is relevant only if the jury can reasonably conclude that the act occurred and that the defendant was the actor); United States v. Trujillo, 376 F.3d 593, 605 (6th Cir.2004) (applying Huddleston; holding that the district court did not err in failing to make a factual determination that the alleged bad acts occurred because a jury could reasonably have concluded that [the defendant] committed the prior bad acts based upon the witnesses's testimony). In this case, Coleman's and Goodwin's testimony was sufficient for the jury to conclude that the acts occurred. The district court did not err by failing to make a preliminary factual determination that the prior sales of crack cocaine took place.