[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 09-15665 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JULY 7, 2010
Non-Argument Calendar
JOHN LEY
________________________
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 07-00015-CV-WTM-5
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
GREG DOUGLAS,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Georgia
_________________________
(July 7, 2010)
Before TJOFLAT, EDMONDSON and BIRCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Greg Douglas appeals his conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to
distribute, and to distribute, 5 kilograms or more of cocaine hydrochloride, or 500
grams or more of methamphetamine. In his brief, he argues that the district court
abused its discretion in admitting the testimony of Vincent Johnson regarding
Douglas’s prior cocaine sales because the testimony constituted evidence of prior
bad acts inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), rather than evidence
tending to establish his involvement in the charged conspiracy. We affirm.
“The district court has broad discretion to determine the admissibility of
evidence, and we will not disturb the court’s judgment absent a clear abuse of
discretion.” United States v. McLean, 138 F.3d 1398, 1403 (11th Cir. 1998). Rule
404(b) makes evidence of “other crimes, wrongs, or acts” inadmissible “to prove
the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith.” Fed. R.
Evid. 404(b). Such “other crimes” evidence is not inadmissible, however, when it
establishes “(1) an uncharged offense which arose out of the same transaction or
series of transactions as the charged offense, (2) [is] necessary to complete the
story of the crime, or (3) [is] inextricably intertwined with the evidence regarding
the charged offense.” McLean, 138 F.3d at 1403. “Evidence, not part of the crime
charged but pertaining to the chain of events explaining the context . . . of the
crime, is properly admitted if linked in time and circumstances with the charged
crime, or forms an integral and natural part of an account of the crime, or is
2
necessary to complete the story of the crime for the jury.” Id. at 1403-04 (holding
evidence of the operation of, and defendant’s involvement in, a drug organization
was properly admitted because it explained why the defendant was targeted in the
investigation, explained his relationship with and established the credibility of a
confidential informant, and explained the alleged goal of the conspiracy, and thus,
was inextricably intertwined with the evidence of the charged offense of
conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute crack cocaine); United States v.
Ramsdale, 61 F.3d 825, 830 (11th Cir. 1995) (holding evidence of possession of
the drug the defendant was charged with conspiring to manufacture, during the
time period alleged in the indictment, and under circumstances suggesting drug
trafficking, was not extrinsic evidence under Rule 404(b) since it was inextricably
intertwined with evidence of the charged offense, and was necessary to complete
the story of the defendant’s role in the charged offense).
Some of the overt acts established by Johnson’s testimony overlapped with
the period of Douglas’s involvement in the charged conspiracy; to that extent, the
testimony depicting those acts was properly before the jury. See Campa, 529 F.3d
at 1002. To the extent some of the acts occurred outside the period of Douglas’s
involvement in the conspiracy, the testimony depicting them was admissible since
it was necessary to establish Douglas’s role in the charged conspiracy, his
3
relationship with Johnson , Johnson’s credibility, and because it was closely linked
in time and circumstances to the charged conspiracy. See McLean, 138 F.3d at
1403-04; Ramsdale, 61 F.3d at 830. Douglas’s argument that the district court
abused its discretion in admitting the challenged testimony accordingly fails.
AFFIRMED.
4