USA v. Marco Dillon

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [13-31158 Affirmed ] Judge: JES , Judge: RHB , Judge: ECP Mandate pull date is 12/04/2014 for Appellant Marco Dillon [13-31158]

Case: 13-31158

Document: 00512835652

Page: 1

Date Filed: 11/13/2014

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-31158
Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

FILED
November 13, 2014
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
MARCO DILLON,

Defendant - Appellant
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 2:12-CR-190
Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Marco Dillon was convicted for conspiracy to distribute, and to possess
with the intent to distribute, 28 grams or more, but less than 280 grams, of
cocaine base (crack), pursuant to 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) and 846. In
challenging the conviction, Dillon claims the district court erred by admitting
certain evidence as intrinsic to the charged conspiracy. (Dillon also claims the
evidence is not admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), concerning

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir.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.
*

Case: 13-31158

Document: 00512835652

Page: 2

Date Filed: 11/13/2014

No. 13-31158
extrinsic evidence. Because, as discussed below, the evidence was intrinsic, we
need not reach this second issue.)
Evidentiary rulings are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. United
States v. Coleman, 78 F.3d 154, 156 (5th Cir. 1996) (citation omitted). During
the time period of the charged conspiracy, Dillon sold crack cocaine to the same
confidential informant who had previously purchased crack cocaine from two
of Dillon’s co-conspirators. Dillon was also arrested for possession of a scale
containing cocaine residue. The district court did not abuse its discretion by
admitting the evidence as intrinsic because the contested evidence was
relevant to establish the relationship between the co-conspirators and how the
conspiracy was structured and operated. E.g., United States v. Wood, 58 F.3d
637, 1995 WL 371100 at *5 (5th Cir. 1995) (unpublished but precedential
pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5.3); see also United States v. Watkins, 591 F.3d 780,
784–85 (5th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.

2