United States v. Johnson , 185 F. App'x 335 ( 2006 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT June 14, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-41557
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ORLANDER CRAZE JOHNSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:04-CR-131-3
--------------------
Before KING, DAVIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Orlander Craze Johnson appeals his conviction, following a
jury trial, for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute
50 grams or more of cocaine base. He first asserts that the
evidence was insufficient to support his conviction because the
Government’s case relied primarily on the testimony of a
coconspirator, which he contends was unreliable and
unsubstantiated. The testimony of various Government witnesses,
including the cooperating coconspirator, was sufficient to
support the conspiracy conviction because the testimony
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-41557
-2-
established the existence of an agreement between two or more
persons to violate narcotics laws, Johnson’s knowledge of such
agreement, and his voluntary participation in it. See United
States v. Peters, 283 F.3d 300, 307 (5th Cir. 2002); United
States v. Westbrook, 119 F.3d 1176, 1189 (5th Cir. 1997).
Johnson avers that the district court should have excluded,
under FED. R. EVID. 404(b), the evidence of extraneous drug
transactions. The district court’s evidentiary ruling with
respect to Johnson’s extraneous drug transactions was in accord
with Rule 404(b), which provides that extrinsic evidence of other
crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character
of a person to show action in conformity therewith, but is
admissible for other purposes, such as intent. See FED. R. EVID.
404(b); United States v. Beechum, 582 F.2d 898, 911 (5th Cir.
1978) (en banc). Also, the district court diminished the
prejudicial effect of the Rule 404(b) evidence by giving a
limiting instruction to the jury regarding the proper use of the
evidence. United States v. Taylor, 210 F.3d 311, 318 (5th Cir.
2000). The district court therefore did not abuse its discretion
with reference to the challenged evidentiary ruling. United
States v. Buchanan, 70 F.3d 818, 831 (5th Cir. 1995). The
judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.