Opinion ID: 176677
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Admission of Firearms

Text: We review a district court’s ruling on a motion in limine for abuse of discretion. United States v. Thompson, 25 F.3d 1558, 1563 (11th Cir. 1994). We also review for abuse of discretion the district court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence. United States v. Smith, 122 F.3d 1355, 1357 (11th Cir. 1997). The harmless error doctrine applies to evidentiary rulings. United States v. Henderson, 409 F.3d 1293, 1300 (11th Cir. 2005); Fed.R.Evid. 103(a); Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(a) (providing that, under the harmless error standard, “[a]ny error . . . that does not affect substantial rights must be disregarded”). We review the record de novo when conducting harmless error analysis. Henderson, 409 F.3d at 1301 n.4. “Overwhelming evidence of guilt is one factor that may be considered in finding harmless error.” United States v. Guzman, 167 F.3d 1350, 1353 (11th Cir. 1999); see United States v. Chavez, 204 F.3d 1305, 1317 (11th Cir. 2000) (finding that admission of evidence in violation of Fed.R.Evid. 404(b) was harmless error because the evidence presented at trial was “substantial” and the defendant’s rights were not affected). 19 The Federal Rules of Evidence provide that [e]vidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident . . . Fed.R.Evid. 404(b). “Rule 404(b) does not exclude evidence that is ‘inextricably intertwined’ with evidence of the charged offense” or “evidence that is ‘linked in time and circumstances with the charged crime.’” United States v. McNair, 605 F.3d 1152, 1203 (11th Cir. 2010). “Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” Fed.R.Evid. 403. The government does not assert that the firearms tended to prove motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or accident. See Fed.R.Evid. 404(b). Instead, it appears to argue, and the district court appears to have found, that the firearms were “inextricably intertwined” or “linked in time and circumstances” to the charged offenses. Although we have recognized that firearms are “tools of the [drug] trade,” see United States v. Terzado-Madruga, 897 F.2d 1099, 1120 (11th Cir. 1990), there is no evidence that 20 the firearms found at Ubaldo-Viezca’s home were used or possessed in connection with the charged offenses. Ubaldo-Viezca was charged only with respect to the fifth trip he and Garcia made to Mexico. At trial, although Garcia testified that she left the truck containing the cocaine at Ubaldo-Viezca’s house after making the first four trips to Mexico, there was no evidence that the truck containing the cocaine was anywhere near Ubaldo-Viezca’s house during the fifth trip. Furthermore, when Garcia and Ubaldo-Viezca were stopped in Alabama, no firearms were found in the vehicle or trailer, or on Ubaldo-Viezca’s or Garcia’s person. There was also no testimony that Ubaldo-Viezca was in possession of a firearm when he and Garcia crossed into the United States on the fifth trip. Thus, although the firearms found at Ubaldo-Viezca’s home were linked in time to the charged offenses—since they were discovered the day after Ubaldo-Viezca was arrested—there is no evidence that they were linked in “circumstances” or “inextricably intertwined” with the charged offenses. See McNair, 605 F.3d at 1203. The government relies on United States v. Ramsdale, 61 F.3d 825 (11th Cir. 1995), for the proposition that weapons are tools of the drug trade and, therefore, the weapons at Ubaldo-Viezca’s home were properly admissible as circumstantial evidence that he was involved in drug trafficking. However, the weapons in 21 Ramsdale were found inside a vehicle that also contained methamphetamine. See id. at 829-30. Thus, unlike in the instant case, the firearms were linked both in time and circumstances to the underlying drug offense, because the defendant possessed the narcotics and the firearm simultaneously. Furthermore, the prejudicial effect of admitting such a large number of weapons, which included several assault rifles and grenade launchers, likely outweighed any limited probative value the firearms had. See Fed.R.Evid. 403. Nevertheless, we affirm Ubaldo-Viezca’s convictions under the harmless error doctrine, because the evidence presented at trial overwhelmingly demonstrated his guilt. See Fed.R.Evid. 103(a) (providing that an erroneous evidentiary ruling does not constitute reversible error unless the error affects a party’s substantial rights); Henderson, 409 F.3d at 1300; Guzman, 167 F.3d at 1353. Specifically, the evidence showed that Ubaldo-Viezca was a passenger in a vehicle that was pulling a trailer containing eight kilograms of cocaine. Ubaldo-Viezca lied to officers, telling them that he was currently working as a confidential informant in connection with a DEA investigation. Before the cocaine was discovered, Ubaldo-Viezca admitted that eight kilograms of cocaine were hidden in the trailer’s axles. According to Herman, Ubaldo-Viezca also admitted to being present in Garcia’s vehicle when the trailer was brought into the United 22 States from Mexico. Herman testified that Garcia told him that she and Ubaldo-Viezca drove the trailer into Mexico on Saturday, June 23, 2007, and drove the trailer back into the United States the following Monday. These dates were corroborated by border crossing documents. Furthermore, Garcia testified that, during the fifth trip to Mexico, she watched Ubaldo-Viezca place the cocaine in the trailer. She specifically noted that Ubaldo-Viezca attached a rope to the packages. Barnes testified that straps were attached to the packages of cocaine when they were found inside the trailer. Accordingly, because the evidence against Ubaldo-Viezca was overwhelming, the admission of the firearms into evidence was harmless error. See Fed.R.Evid. 103(a); Henderson, 409 F.3d at 1300; Guzman, 167 F.3d at 1353.