United States v. Johnson , 84 F. App'x 439 ( 2004 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS January 5, 2004
FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-51329
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
SAMUEL LATRELL JOHNSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
(MO-01-CR-143-2)
Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges
PER CURIAM:*
Samuel Latrell Johnson appeals his jury trial conviction for
conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute and possession
with the intent to distribute 50 grams or more of cocaine base
(crack), in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. He
challenges the admission of testimony by the cooperating co-
defendant, Heath, that for several years prior to the events giving
rise to the indictment, Johnson and Heath were partners in crack-
trafficking.
We review the admission of evidence for abuse of discretion.
United States v. Royal, 972 F.2d 643, 645 (5th Cir. 1992). Johnson
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
asserts that the district court abused its discretion by admitting
the evidence under FED. R. EVID. 403. Johnson further contends that
the testimony was inadmissible because it constituted extrinsic
evidence of extraneous offenses. Johnson cites cases which
involved the application of FED. R. EVID. 404(b).
Heath’s testimony concerning his drug-trafficking partnership
with Johnson was intrinsic background information which established
their relationship as co-conspirators. See United States v.
Miranda, 248 F.3d 434, 440-41 (5th Cir. 2001); United States v.
Krout, 66 F.3d 1420, 1431 (5th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, the
admission of this testimony was not an abuse of discretion.
AFFIRMED
2