United States v. Mack , 121 F. App'x 51 ( 2005 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT February 2, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-50386
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ANTHONY ANTWONNE MACK, also known as Anthony Mack,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 6:02-CR-150-ALL
--------------------
Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Anthony Antwonne Mack appeals his jury-trial conviction for
distribution of crack cocaine. He argues that the district court
abused its discretion in denying his motion for new trial and
also in admitting evidence of a prior illegal drug transaction in
which he was involved.
Mack based his motion for new trial upon newly discovered
evidence consisting of the statements of two eyewitnesses to the
offense, Christian Anthony and Luther Hall, which he contends
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 04-50386
-2-
would show at a new trial that he was not involved in the sale of
crack cocaine to undercover police officers.
Given the evidence of Mack’s guilt, the questionable
credibility of Anthony, and Hall’s admissions that he did not
watch Mack throughout the entire transaction, Mack’s proffered
testimony would not probably result in an acquittal.
Accordingly, the district court did not clearly abuse its
discretion in denying Mack’s motion for new trial. See United
States v. Freeman, 77 F.3d 812, 817 (5th Cir. 1996).
Mack argues further that the district court abused its
discretion in admitting evidence of a prior illegal transaction
to prove his identity. He contends that the two offenses were
not sufficiently similar to establish a signature quality to the
offenses that was probative of his identity.
Given that Mack’s defense focused exclusively on his
identification, the prior illegal drug transaction was relevant
to the officers’ identification of Mack as a participant in the
charged offense. See United States v. Sanchez, 988 F.2d 1384,
1394 (5th Cir. 1993). There were also substantial similarities
between the two illegal drug transactions. Both drug buys took
place in the same block, and both involved the same two officers
and the same two dealers. See id. at 1393. Moreover, the
officers purchased the crack cocaine from Mack only one week
before the instant offense. See id.
No. 04-50386
-3-
In addition, the district court minimized the prejudicial
effect of the extrinsic act evidence by giving limiting
instructions immediately following the testimony about the prior
transaction and also in the closing jury instructions. See
United States v. Taylor, 210 F.3d 311, 318 (5th Cir. 2000).
Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion
in admitting the evidence of Mack’s prior wrongful act. See
United States v. Jackson, 339 F.3d 349, 354 (5th Cir. 2003).
AFFIRMED.