UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 98-21081
Summary Calendar
____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
EDWARD LIONEL BLAKE,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
(No. H-98-Cr-215-1)
_________________________________________________________________
September 23, 1999
Before JONES, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Edward Lionel Blake appeals his convictions for conspiracy to
possess with intent to distribute cocaine base and aiding and
abetting possession with intent to distribute cocaine base,
contending that the district court admitted improperly extrinsic
evidence of a subsequent bad act that contributed to his
conviction. Blake characterizes crack cocaine found in his
possession during the execution of a search warrant, subsequent to
the date of the charged offense, as extrinsic evidence under FED.
R. EVID. 404(b). An officer testified that, during the execution of
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
the warrant, Blake grabbed something from the dresser, where rocks
of crack cocaine were discovered, and fled.
The standard of review for the trial court’s determination of
admissibility of evidence is abuse of discretion. E.g., United
States v. Chavez, 119 F.3d 342, 346 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 118
S. Ct. 615 (1997); see FED. R. EVID. 103.
The extrinsic evidence of other bad acts must fit within one
of the exceptions of Rule 404(b). It cannot be admitted to show the
character of the defendant. Here, the applicable exception is the
intent of the defendant. Such intent is at issue when the
defendant pleads not guilty to a drug conspiracy charge. United
States v. Parsee, 178 F.3d 374, 379 (5th Cir. 1999). Blake pleaded
not guilty. And, the district court noted similarities between the
two crimes, possession of drugs. Along this line, the district
court gave a limiting instruction that this evidence could be used
only to determine “whether Mr. Blake had the state of mind or
intent necessary to commit the crime charged in the indictment”.
Blake also contends that the bad act is not admissible because
it occurred after the charged offense. But, there is no
requirement that other bad acts occur prior to the charged offense.
AFFIRMED
2