United States v. Quintanilla ( 2001 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-40093
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ARNULFO QUINTANILLA,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. L-00-CR-799-ALL
--------------------
November 7, 2001
Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Arnulfo Quintanilla appeals from a judgment of conviction
for possession of cocaine base. 21 U.S.C. § 844(a). Quintanilla
argues the trial court erred in admitting evidence of uncharged
possession of marijuana and cocaine hydrocloride (rock cocaine)
found contemporaneously with the charged cocaine base possession.
We review evidentiary rulings involving Rule 404(b) under an
abuse of discretion standard. United States v. Navarro, 169 F.3d
228, 232 (5th Cir. 1999). When no objection is asserted during
trial, we review evidentiary rulings under a plain error
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-40093
-2-
standard. Id. At trial, Quintanilla asserted objections to the
uncharged drug possession on the grounds of relevance, narration,
and leading. Accordingly, his complaint on appeal that the
uncharged evidence violated prior bad acts evidence under Rule
404(b) is reviewed for plain error. Fed. R. Evid. 103(a)(1); see
Jackson v. Johnson, 194 F.3d 641, 651 (5th Cir. 1999)(recognizing
the general rule that any impropriety in the State’s argument is
waived by a defendant’s failure to assert a timely and proper
objection); United States v. Fox, 613 F.2d 99, 101 (5th Cir.
1980)(waiving a claim of error based on exception to hearsay rule
where specific objection asserted related to relevancy).
Even assuming arguendo that Quintanilla asserted the proper
objection, the record establishes that the uncharged possessions
constituted intrinsic evidence. See United States v. Coleman, 78
F.3d 154, 156 (5th Cir. 1996). Thus, Federal Rule of Evidence
404(b) does not prohibit the admissibility of the uncharged
possessions. Coleman, 78 F.3d at 156. Accordingly, the judgment
of the trial court is AFFIRMED.