United States v. Carl Thompson, II, 690 F. App'x 302

In October 2014 Thompson was indicted for two counts of being a felon in possession of firearms (June 11 and 12, 2013) and one count of possession with intent to distribute marijuana, crack cocaine, and heroin (October 21, 2014).
Police stopped Thompson and Jesse Phillips; drugs were found on the lawn near their car after Phillips testified to a grand jury that Thompson had thrown drugs from the car. Both men had similar amounts of cash on them.
The government presented testimony (including two witnesses who said Thompson previously sold marijuana), text messages, social-media photos, and stipulations about prior marijuana-related stops; the court admitted that evidence under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b).
The jury convicted Thompson on all counts; after conviction Phillips recanted parts of his grand-jury statements and said some or all drugs belonged to him. Thompson moved for a new trial and for judgment of acquittal; both motions were denied.
Thompson appealed, arguing the district court erred by admitting 404(b) evidence, denying a new trial based on Phillips’s recantation, permitting joinder of gun and drug charges, and denying judgment of acquittal.

Issue	Thompson's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Admission of Rule 404(b) evidence (prior marijuana acts, texts, arrests)	Evidence was improper propensity evidence, insufficiently similar and too remote to prove intent for drugs found in 2014	Prior-act evidence was probative of specific intent, contemporaneous in method (bags, cars), and admissible with limiting instruction	Affirmed: district court properly admitted 404(b) evidence (probative of intent; prejudice outweighed)
Motion for new trial based on Phillips’s recantation	Phillips’s changed statements are newly discovered and would likely produce acquittal	Phillips was an unreliable, impeachable witness; his recantation would not likely produce acquittal given other evidence	Affirmed: denial of new trial was not an abuse of discretion
Joinder of gun and drug charges	Charges were dissimilar and should not have been tried together; joinder prejudiced Thompson	Joinder was permitted by Rule 8(a); limiting jury instructions mitigated prejudice	Affirmed under plain-error review: joinder did not affect substantial rights
Sufficiency of the evidence (judgment of acquittal)	Evidence did not prove specific intent to distribute heroin or crack (or any drug) beyond a reasonable doubt	Amounts, packaging, cash, text messages, prior acts, and expert testimony supported inference of distribution	Affirmed: viewing evidence in prosecution’s favor, a rational juror could find intent to distribute

Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681 (probative standard for prior-act evidence under Rule 404(b))
United States v. Mack, 258 F.3d 548 (6th Cir. 2001) (three-part 404(b) analysis framework)
United States v. Carter, 779 F.3d 623 (6th Cir. 2015) (limits on relevance of dissimilar prior-drug acts)
United States v. Ayoub, 498 F.3d 532 (6th Cir. 2007) (use of limiting instructions to reduce prejudice from 404(b) evidence)
United States v. Jenkins, 593 F.3d 480 (6th Cir. 2010) (prior marijuana distribution marginally probative of intent to distribute other drugs)
United States v. Johnson, 27 F.3d 1186 (6th Cir. 1994) (404(b) admissibility where specific intent is element)
United States v. Chavis, 296 F.3d 450 (6th Cir. 2002) (joinder analysis and limiting instructions)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency of evidence review)
United States v. Lane, 474 U.S. 438 (plain-error substantial-rights standard)
United States v. Ismail, 756 F.2d 1253 (6th Cir. 1985) (admissibility of prior drug acts involving different drugs)