United States v. Ariel Canales, 857 F.3d 963

In May 2015 a confidential informant (CI) arranged a controlled purchase of methamphetamine from Ariel Caceres at an auto shop where he worked; Caceres was later indicted for distribution and conspiracy.
At a pretrial hearing, Caceres sought to admit evidence of two separate threats by the CI: one before the controlled buy (CI allegedly shot at Caceres after he refused to distribute) and one after the buy (CI allegedly shot at Caceres over an unrelated robbery dispute).
The district court admitted evidence of the first threat but excluded evidence of the second threat; it did allow cross-examination about the robbery itself to show bias/motive.
At trial the CI and his friend testified; Caceres introduced the first-threat evidence but did not question witnesses about the robbery. A jury convicted Caceres of distribution but acquitted on conspiracy.
Caceres moved for a new trial arguing the district court erred in excluding the second-threat evidence; the district court denied the motion and Caceres appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility under Rule 404(b): whether evidence of a post-offense threat was relevant to entrapment	Second threat shows a pattern of coercion establishing government-induced conduct (entrapment)	Second threat occurred after the distribution and was unrelated to drug trafficking, so not relevant to entrapment	Excluded — not relevant to entrapment because it postdated and was unrelated to the charged offense
Admissibility under Rule 404(b): whether second threat showed witness bias/motive	Second threat shows CI and friend had motive to testify against Caceres	Evidence of robbery and belief CI/friend had about Caceres was admissible by cross-examination; the second-threat detail was unnecessary	Excluded as unnecessary for showing bias because district court permitted cross-examination about the robbery; Caceres waived claim by not using that option

United States v. Battle, 774 F.3d 504 (8th Cir.) (standard: evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
United States v. Golding, 833 F.3d 914 (8th Cir.) (Rule 404(b) relevance requirement)
United States v. Bugh, 701 F.3d 888 (8th Cir.) (elements of entrapment)
United States v. Kendrick, 423 F.3d 803 (8th Cir.) (entrapment requires government-originated design leading to the offense)
United States v. McClure, 546 F.2d 670 (5th Cir.) (post-offense threats admitted as part of a systematic campaign of intimidation)
Reiter v. Honeywell, Inc., 104 F.3d 1071 (8th Cir.) (non-binding precedential limits between circuits)
United States v. Mshihiri, 816 F.3d 997 (8th Cir.) (tactical trial decisions can waive appellate review)
United States v. Mihm, 13 F.3d 1200 (8th Cir.) (unsuccessful tactical decisions waive even plain-error review)