Court Opinion

ID: 9364746
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-20 01:00:42.522391+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:39.676916
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-40001         Document: 00516617086             Page: 1      Date Filed: 01/19/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit                                        United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit

                                      ____________                                     FILED
                                                                                January 19, 2023
                                       No. 22-40001                               Lyle W. Cayce
                                     Summary Calendar                                  Clerk
                                     ____________

   United States of America,

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Steven Thomas Mathis; Omar Daniel Garcia-Agosto,

                                              Defendants—Appellants.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Eastern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 4:19-CR-265-2
                               USDC No. 4:19-CR-265-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Steven Thomas Mathis and Omar Daniel Garcia-Agosto appeal their
   convictions for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine. They
   argue the district court abused its discretion in admitting evidence of their
   marijuana and heroin trafficking with coconspirators.

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-40001       Document: 00516617086           Page: 2     Date Filed: 01/19/2023

                                      No. 22-40001

          Because Mathis and Garcia-Agosto preserved their claims in the
   district court, we review for abuse of discretion. United States v. Lucas, 849
   F.3d 638, 642-43 (5th Cir. 2017). “To determine whether ‘other acts’
   evidence was erroneously admitted, first [this court] must determine
   whether the evidence was intrinsic or extrinsic.” United States v. Coleman,
   78 F.3d 154, 156 (5th Cir. 1996). In a conspiracy case, evidence is intrinsic
   “if it is relevant to establish how the conspiracy came about, how it was
   structured, and how the appellant became a member.” United States v.
   Watkins, 591 F.3d 780, 784 (5th Cir. 2009).
          Mathis and Garcia-Agosto have not shown that the district court
   abused its discretion in admitting evidence of Mathis’s marijuana trafficking.
   See Lucas, 849 F.3d at 642-43. The evidence that a coconspirator, Anthony
   Morse, sold marijuana to Mathis was intrinsic because it established
   background facts concerning the relationship between Morse and Mathis, as
   well as why Morse felt comfortable bringing Mathis into the cocaine
   conspiracy later. See United States v. Gurrola, 898 F.3d 524, 536 (5th Cir.
   2018); United States v. Watkins, 591 F.3d 780, 784 (5th Cir. 2009). The
   marijuana trafficking also had temporal proximity to the cocaine conspiracy
   as Morse began selling marijuana to Mathis in early 2016, and then began
   dealing cocaine in mid-2016. See Watkins, 591 F.3d at 784.
          Nor have Mathis and Garcia-Agosto shown that the district court
   abused its discretion in finding Mathis’s heroin trafficking activity was
   intrinsic to the charged cocaine conspiracy. 1 See Lucas, 849 F.3d at 642-43.
   This evidence established that the coconspirators distributed both cocaine
   and heroin during the same general time period, used the same sources of

          _____________________
          1
             The Government did not present evidence that Garcia-Agosto was involved in
   heroin trafficking.

                                            2
Case: 22-40001       Document: 00516617086          Page: 3    Date Filed: 01/19/2023

                                     No. 22-40001

   supply and the same people to transport both drugs and drug proceeds,
   distributed the drugs to the same general locations, and commingled funds
   from the proceeds of both drugs. See Watkins, 591 F.3d at 785.
            We also are not persuaded that the district court abused its discretion
   in implicitly finding the probative value of Mathis’s marijuana and heroin
   trafficking evidence outweighed any prejudicial effect under Federal Rule of
   Evidence 403. See United States v. Clark, 577 F.3d 273, 287 (5th Cir. 2009).
   Rule 403 “should generally not be used to exclude intrinsic evidence, because
   intrinsic inculpatory evidence is by its very nature prejudicial.” United States
   v. Sudeen, 434 F.3d 384, 389 (5th Cir. 2005) (emphasis in original). Here, the
   evidence had a great deal of probative value as it explained the relationship of
   the coconspirators and various aspects of the conspiracy. See Watkins, 591
   F.3d at 784.
            It is less clear whether the evidence of Garcia-Agosto’s marijuana
   activities was intrinsic to the charged cocaine conspiracy. Nonetheless, the
   district court’s admission of the marijuana-related evidence was harmless in
   light of the overwhelming evidence presented at trial that Garcia-Agosto
   purchased kilogram quantities of cocaine from Morse during the conspiracy,
   as did Mathis. See United States v. Williams, 620 F.3d 483, 492 (5th Cir.
   2010).
            AFFIRMED.

                                           3