United States v. Mathis ( 2023 )

Case: 22-40001 Document: 00516617086 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/19/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
____________ FILED
January 19, 2023
No. 22-40001 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
____________
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Steven Thomas Mathis; Omar Daniel Garcia-Agosto,
Defendants—Appellants.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:19-CR-265-2
USDC No. 4:19-CR-265-1
______________________________
Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Steven Thomas Mathis and Omar Daniel Garcia-Agosto appeal their
convictions for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine. They
argue the district court abused its discretion in admitting evidence of their
marijuana and heroin trafficking with coconspirators.
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-40001 Document: 00516617086 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/19/2023
No. 22-40001
Because Mathis and Garcia-Agosto preserved their claims in the
district court, we review for abuse of discretion. United States v. Lucas, 849
F.3d 638, 642-43 (5th Cir. 2017). “To determine whether ‘other acts’
evidence was erroneously admitted, first [this court] must determine
whether the evidence was intrinsic or extrinsic.” United States v. Coleman,
78 F.3d 154, 156 (5th Cir. 1996). In a conspiracy case, evidence is intrinsic
“if it is relevant to establish how the conspiracy came about, how it was
structured, and how the appellant became a member.” United States v.
Watkins, 591 F.3d 780, 784 (5th Cir. 2009).
Mathis and Garcia-Agosto have not shown that the district court
abused its discretion in admitting evidence of Mathis’s marijuana trafficking.
See Lucas, 849 F.3d at 642-43. The evidence that a coconspirator, Anthony
Morse, sold marijuana to Mathis was intrinsic because it established
background facts concerning the relationship between Morse and Mathis, as
well as why Morse felt comfortable bringing Mathis into the cocaine
conspiracy later. See United States v. Gurrola, 898 F.3d 524, 536 (5th Cir.
2018); United States v. Watkins, 591 F.3d 780, 784 (5th Cir. 2009). The
marijuana trafficking also had temporal proximity to the cocaine conspiracy
as Morse began selling marijuana to Mathis in early 2016, and then began
dealing cocaine in mid-2016. See Watkins, 591 F.3d at 784.
Nor have Mathis and Garcia-Agosto shown that the district court
abused its discretion in finding Mathis’s heroin trafficking activity was
intrinsic to the charged cocaine conspiracy. 1 See Lucas, 849 F.3d at 642-43.
This evidence established that the coconspirators distributed both cocaine
and heroin during the same general time period, used the same sources of
_____________________
1
The Government did not present evidence that Garcia-Agosto was involved in
heroin trafficking.
2
Case: 22-40001 Document: 00516617086 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/19/2023
No. 22-40001
supply and the same people to transport both drugs and drug proceeds,
distributed the drugs to the same general locations, and commingled funds
from the proceeds of both drugs. See Watkins, 591 F.3d at 785.
We also are not persuaded that the district court abused its discretion
in implicitly finding the probative value of Mathis’s marijuana and heroin
trafficking evidence outweighed any prejudicial effect under Federal Rule of
Evidence 403. See United States v. Clark, 577 F.3d 273, 287 (5th Cir. 2009).
Rule 403 “should generally not be used to exclude intrinsic evidence, because
intrinsic inculpatory evidence is by its very nature prejudicial.” United States
v. Sudeen, 434 F.3d 384, 389 (5th Cir. 2005) (emphasis in original). Here, the
evidence had a great deal of probative value as it explained the relationship of
the coconspirators and various aspects of the conspiracy. See Watkins, 591
F.3d at 784.
It is less clear whether the evidence of Garcia-Agosto’s marijuana
activities was intrinsic to the charged cocaine conspiracy. Nonetheless, the
district court’s admission of the marijuana-related evidence was harmless in
light of the overwhelming evidence presented at trial that Garcia-Agosto
purchased kilogram quantities of cocaine from Morse during the conspiracy,
as did Mathis. See United States v. Williams, 620 F.3d 483, 492 (5th Cir.
2010).
AFFIRMED.
3