United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS October 2, 2003
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 01-31367
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DEAN CLAUDE MCCAULEY,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
USDC No. 01-CR-47-ALL
--------------------
Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Dean Claude McCauley appeals his convictions after a jury
trial of conspiracy to distribute marihuana, possession with intent
to distribute marihuana, two counts of unlawful use of a
communications facility, two counts of interstate travel in aid of
racketeering, and conspiracy to launder monetary instruments.
McCauley argues that the district court abused its discretion in
allowing the admission of evidence of his prior convictions for
conspiracy to manufacture and to possess with intent to distribute
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under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.
No. 01-31367
-2-
methamphetamine and conspiracy to distribute marihuana. He
contends that, in light of the evidence presented at trial, the
prior convictions were not relevant to the issue of intent and that
the admission of this evidence was unduly prejudicial.
We hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion
by admitting evidence of the prior convictions. By pleading not
guilty, McCauley placed his intent at issue. Given the unique
nature of the intent element in a conspiracy charge and the
similarity of the intent requirement of McCauley’s prior
convictions to the charged conspiracy, the prior convictions were
relevant to the issue of McCauley’s intent. See United States v.
Jackson, __ F.3d __, 2003 WL 21692680, *5 (5th Cir. July 21, 2003)
(No. 01-51108). McCauley’s defense called into question the
credibility of the main witness against him and speculated on
legitimate reasons for his association with her. In light of the
facts of this case, we hold that the district court did not abuse
its discretion in holding that the probative value of the evidence
was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
See United States v. Buchanan, 70 F.3d 818, 831 (5th Cir. 1995);
United States v. Henthorn, 815 F.2d 304, 308 (5th Cir. 1987).
AFFIRMED.