UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4696
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RICHARD JERRY HICKS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, District
Judge. (1:14-cr-00028-JPJ-PMS-2)
Submitted: December 1, 2016 Decided: December 9, 2016
Before AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael A. Bragg, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellant. John P.
Fishwick, Jr., United States Attorney, Kevin L. Jayne, Special
Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
A jury convicted Richard Jerry Hicks of five counts
relating to the manufacture of methamphetamine, in violation of
21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), (c)(1)-(2), 858, 860a (2012).
The district court sentenced Hicks to 180 months’ imprisonment.
The sole issue on appeal is whether the district court erred
under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) when it admitted evidence of Hicks’
past conviction for manufacturing methamphetamine and the
circumstances underlying that conviction.
We review a district court’s Rule 404(b) rulings for abuse
of discretion and will affirm unless “the district court judge
acted arbitrarily or irrationally.” United States v. Cabrera-
Beltran, 660 F.3d 742, 755 (4th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation
marks omitted). Rule 404(b)(1) prohibits the admission of
“[e]vidence of a crime, wrong, or other act . . . to prove a
person’s character in order to show that on a particular
occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.”
Evidence of other crimes or bad acts, however, “may be
admissible for other purposes, such as proving motive,
opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity,
absence of mistake, or lack of accident.” Fed. R. Evid.
404(b)(2). In drug cases, this court generally admits evidence
of a defendant’s prior, similar drug conduct to prove the
defendant’s knowledge and intent. Cabrera-Beltran, 660 F.3d at
2
755. The evidence must also be relevant, necessary to prove an
element of the offense, reliable, and admissible under Fed. R.
Evid. 403.
Under Rule 404(b), we conclude that the district court did
not abuse its discretion when it admitted evidence of Hicks’
past drug conduct. The evidence satisfies each of the four
requirements under Rule 404(b) and shows Hicks’ knowledge of the
methamphetamine production and intent to participate in the
conspiracy. Moreover, we can distinguish the cases Hicks cites.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3