United States v. Muniz-Reyes ( 1997 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-40763
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MARIA MUNIZ-REYES,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. B-95-CR-306-5
- - - - - - - - - -
April 15, 1997
Before REAVLEY, DAVIS, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Maria Muniz-Reyes (Muniz) was convicted for conspiracy to
possess with intent to distribute marijuana and with possession
with intent to distribute marijuana. Muniz contends that the
district court erred in admitting evidence of her prior drug
dealing activity under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) at her trial.
This court applies a two-pronged test to determine the
admissibility of evidence under Rule 404(b). First, the evidence
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 Local Rule
47.5.4.
No. 96-40763
- 2 -
must be relevant to an issue other than the defendant's
character. Second, the evidence must have probative value that
is not substantially outweighed by undue prejudice and must
otherwise be admissible under Rule 403. United States v.
Beechum, 582 F.2d 898, 911 (1978)(en banc). The district court’s
admission of extrinsic-acts evidence may be reversed only upon a
clear showing of an abuse of discretion. United States v.
Broussard, 80 F.3d 1025, 1039 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 117 S.
Ct. 264 (1996).
Muniz’s plea of not guilty to the conspiracy charge was
sufficient to place the issue of her intent at issue. United
States v. Prati, 861 F.2d 82, 86 (5th Cir. 1988). Muniz does not
assert that the testimony in question was not probative of her
intent, rather she simply asserts undue prejudice. Any prejudice
that Muniz suffered was minimized by the district court’s
repeated limiting instructions. United States v. Devine, 934
F.2d 1325, 1346 (5th Cir. 1991). The district court did not
abuse its discretion in admitting into evidence the testimony
regarding Muniz’s prior drug trafficking activity.
AFFIRMED.