Court Opinion

ID: 9363814
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-17 19:00:37.749869+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:34.425103
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-30697        Document: 00516612486            Page: 1      Date Filed: 01/17/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                    ____________
                                                                              United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                       Fifth Circuit
                                     No. 21-30697
                                   Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                   ____________                               January 17, 2023
                                                                                Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                         Clerk

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                           versus

   Larcentursa Mayweather,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Western District of Louisiana
                             USDC No. 1:20-CR-138-2
                    ______________________________

   Before King, Higginson, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Larcentursa Mayweather appeals his convictions for armed bank
   robbery, conspiring to commit armed bank robbery, and making a false bomb
   threat. He argues that the district court erred in admitting testimony about
   prior robberies that he and his codefendants committed.

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 21-30697      Document: 00516612486            Page: 2   Date Filed: 01/17/2023

                                      No. 21-30697

          Evidence of extrinsic acts is admissible only if it is relevant to an issue
   other than the defendant’s character and it possesses probative value that is
   not substantially outweighed by undue prejudice. United States v. Beechum,
   582 F.2d 898, 911 (5th Cir. 1978) (en banc); see Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). Such
   evidence is also subject to Federal Rule of Evidence 104(b), meaning it is
   relevant only if jurors could reasonably find by a preponderance of the
   evidence that the purported conduct actually occurred. United States v.
   Gutierrez-Mendez, 752 F.3d 418, 424 (5th Cir. 2014). Because the standard
   of review is not dispositive here, we assume that Mayweather preserved his
   argument and review under this court’s heightened abuse-of-discretion
   standard for Rule 404(b) rulings. See United States v. Kinchen, 729 F.3d 466,
   470 (5th Cir. 2013); United States v. Wright, 496 F.3d 371, 381 (5th Cir. 2007).
          Mayweather does not dispute that the prior robberies were relevant
   for non-character purposes, such as those listed in Rule 404(b)(2). Indeed,
   the uncharged offenses were relevant to Mayweather’s intent, which was
   necessarily at issue in this conspiracy case. See United States v. Cockrell, 587
   F.3d 674, 679 (5th Cir. 2009).
          Nor does Mayweather meaningfully contest that the second Beechum
   prong is satisfied. Although he contends that the probative value of the
   evidence is outweighed by its prejudicial effect, his argument on this issue is
   that the Government’s evidence was insufficient to show that he committed
   the prior offenses. Specifically, Mayweather argues that his codefendants’
   testimony     was   insufficient    proof   because    their    testimony    was
   uncorroborated, and because their credibility was crucial to the
   Government’s case. This is a Rule 104(b) argument, and we reject it. Both
   of Mayweather’s codefendants testified about Mayweather’s involvement in
   the uncharged robberies and, in so doing, corroborated each other’s
   accounts. Additionally, an FBI agent testified that Mayweather’s phone

                                           2
Case: 21-30697         Document: 00516612486             Page: 3      Date Filed: 01/17/2023

                                          No. 21-30697

   contained searches for Family Dollar stores in the area, 2 and that there were
   police reports documenting the uncharged robberies. Based on this evidence,
   the jury could have reasonably found by a preponderance of the evidence that
   Mayweather committed the uncharged robberies. Gutierrez-Mendez, 752
   F.3d at 424; see also United States v. Henthorn, 815 F.2d 304, 308 (5th Cir.
   1987) (noting that jurors could “easily accept” a witness’s testimony about
   prior offenses as proof that they occurred).
          To the extent Mayweather argues that the prejudicial effect of the
   evidence outweighed its probative value, we disagree. The district court
   instructed the jury on the limited purposes for which they could consider the
   evidence. Juries are generally presumed to follow their instructions, Zafiro v.
   United States, 506 U.S. 534, 540 (1993), and this court has affirmed that
   limiting instructions “greatly minimize any risk of undue prejudice posed by
   the admission of extrinsic evidence,” United States v. Garcia Mendoza, 587
   F.3d 682, 689 (5th Cir. 2009). Moreover, the prior offenses were not
   “greater in magnitude than the crimes for which [Mayweather] was on trial.”
   United States v. Hernandez-Guevara, 162 F.3d 863, 872 (5th Cir. 1998). We
   see no undue prejudice caused by the Government’s presentation of the
   extrinsic-acts evidence.
          The district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the
   extrinsic evidence. See Kinchen, 729 F.3d at 470. AFFIRMED.

          _____________________
          2
              One of the two uncharged offenses at issue was a robbery of a Family Dollar.

                                                3