United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT March 31, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-51068
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
WILLIE ANDREW SMITH
Defendant - Appellant
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 2:04-CR-48-2-AML
--------------------
Before KING, WIENER and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Willie Andrew Smith appeals his conviction for illegal
transportation of aliens and conspiracy to transport aliens.
Smith contends that the trial court abused its discretion by
admitting evidence related to Smith’s October 14, 2003, arrest
for illegally transporting aliens (the October arrest). Smith
asserts that his conduct in relation to the October arrest was
not admissible under Rule 404 because it was neither criminal nor
a bad act, because Smith did not present any defense, and because
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 04-51068
-2-
he did not assert mistake or accident. In the alternative, he
argues that evidence related to the October arrest was
irrelevant. In the further alternative, Smith argues that
evidence related to the October arrest was unduly prejudicial, in
part because the Government’s other evidence was sufficient to
establish Smith’s guilt in the instant offense. Smith also
asserts that the district court violated Fed. R. Evid. 403 by
failing to conduct a balancing test, by not conducting the
balancing test on the record, and by not using the correct
standard in its Rule 403 ruling.
The district court held hearings on Smith’s Rule 403 and
Rule 404 challenges and explicitly addressed Smith’s challenges
regarding the criminality of his conduct related to the October
arrest, the relevancy of the October arrest, and the balancing of
the probative value of evidence related to the October arrest
against the potential for undue prejudice from such testimony.
It correctly found that evidence related to the October arrest
was relevant and was admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) to
show Smith’s knowledge and intent, which were placed at issue by
Smith’s “not guilty” plea. See United States v. Walker, 410 F.3d
754, 759 (5th Cir. 2005); United States v. Beechum, 582 F.2d 898,
911 (5th Cir. 1978) (en banc). This evidence possessed
considerable probative value that was not substantially
outweighed by undue prejudice under Fed. R. Evid. 403. See
No. 04-51068
-3-
United States v. Williams, 132 F.3d 1055, 1058-60 (5th Cir.
1998); Beechum, 582 F.2d at 911.
For the foregoing reasons, Smith’s conviction is AFFIRMED.