United States v. Mayweather ( 2023 )

Case: 21-30697 Document: 00516612486 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/17/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 21-30697
Summary Calendar FILED
____________ January 17, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Larcentursa Mayweather,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 1:20-CR-138-2
______________________________
Before King, Higginson, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Larcentursa Mayweather appeals his convictions for armed bank
robbery, conspiring to commit armed bank robbery, and making a false bomb
threat. He argues that the district court erred in admitting testimony about
prior robberies that he and his codefendants committed.
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 21-30697 Document: 00516612486 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/17/2023
No. 21-30697
Evidence of extrinsic acts is admissible only if it is relevant to an issue
other than the defendant’s character and it possesses probative value that is
not substantially outweighed by undue prejudice. United States v. Beechum,
582 F.2d 898, 911 (5th Cir. 1978) (en banc); see Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). Such
evidence is also subject to Federal Rule of Evidence 104(b), meaning it is
relevant only if jurors could reasonably find by a preponderance of the
evidence that the purported conduct actually occurred. United States v.
Gutierrez-Mendez, 752 F.3d 418, 424 (5th Cir. 2014). Because the standard
of review is not dispositive here, we assume that Mayweather preserved his
argument and review under this court’s heightened abuse-of-discretion
standard for Rule 404(b) rulings. See United States v. Kinchen, 729 F.3d 466,
470 (5th Cir. 2013); United States v. Wright, 496 F.3d 371, 381 (5th Cir. 2007).
Mayweather does not dispute that the prior robberies were relevant
for non-character purposes, such as those listed in Rule 404(b)(2). Indeed,
the uncharged offenses were relevant to Mayweather’s intent, which was
necessarily at issue in this conspiracy case. See United States v. Cockrell, 587
F.3d 674, 679 (5th Cir. 2009).
Nor does Mayweather meaningfully contest that the second Beechum
prong is satisfied. Although he contends that the probative value of the
evidence is outweighed by its prejudicial effect, his argument on this issue is
that the Government’s evidence was insufficient to show that he committed
the prior offenses. Specifically, Mayweather argues that his codefendants’
testimony was insufficient proof because their testimony was
uncorroborated, and because their credibility was crucial to the
Government’s case. This is a Rule 104(b) argument, and we reject it. Both
of Mayweather’s codefendants testified about Mayweather’s involvement in
the uncharged robberies and, in so doing, corroborated each other’s
accounts. Additionally, an FBI agent testified that Mayweather’s phone
2
Case: 21-30697 Document: 00516612486 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/17/2023
No. 21-30697
contained searches for Family Dollar stores in the area, 2 and that there were
police reports documenting the uncharged robberies. Based on this evidence,
the jury could have reasonably found by a preponderance of the evidence that
Mayweather committed the uncharged robberies. Gutierrez-Mendez, 752
F.3d at 424; see also United States v. Henthorn, 815 F.2d 304, 308 (5th Cir.
1987) (noting that jurors could “easily accept” a witness’s testimony about
prior offenses as proof that they occurred).
To the extent Mayweather argues that the prejudicial effect of the
evidence outweighed its probative value, we disagree. The district court
instructed the jury on the limited purposes for which they could consider the
evidence. Juries are generally presumed to follow their instructions, Zafiro v.
United States, 506 U.S. 534, 540 (1993), and this court has affirmed that
limiting instructions “greatly minimize any risk of undue prejudice posed by
the admission of extrinsic evidence,” United States v. Garcia Mendoza, 587
F.3d 682, 689 (5th Cir. 2009). Moreover, the prior offenses were not
“greater in magnitude than the crimes for which [Mayweather] was on trial.”
United States v. Hernandez-Guevara, 162 F.3d 863, 872 (5th Cir. 1998). We
see no undue prejudice caused by the Government’s presentation of the
extrinsic-acts evidence.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the
extrinsic evidence. See Kinchen, 729 F.3d at 470. AFFIRMED.
_____________________
2
One of the two uncharged offenses at issue was a robbery of a Family Dollar.
3