United States v. Carrillo, 660 F.3d 914

Carrillo and Rodriguez were charged with possession with intent to distribute five grams or more of methamphetamine; jury convicted Carrillo, Rodriguez not guilty.
Border Patrol checkpoint search following Rodriguez’s car did not yield drugs; later, Carrillo was arrested on a parole violation.
Search of Rodriguez and Carrillo’s residence yielded methamphetamine, manufacturing materials, and scales.
Carrillo was interviewed in jail on Sept. 10 after an earlier invocation of right to counsel; interrogation was recorded.
District court admitted the Sept. 10 interview recording, Rule 404(b) evidence from Lara about prior meth use, and a 2005 cocaine conviction; Carrillo was sentenced to 172 months and eight years of supervised release with a no-alcohol condition.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether confession should be suppressed for Miranda invocation	Carrillo contends he clearly invoked counsel and interrogation should have ceased.	Carrillo argues police deceived him and waived rights unlawfully.	Confession admissible; no clear invocation or deceptive waiver found.
Whether detectives deceived Carrillo into waiving Miranda rights	Carrillo asserts deception invalidates the waiver.	State asserts no deception; information given was accurate about counsel timing.	Waiver not obtained by deception; admissible.
Whether the flight instruction was proper	Carrillo challenges the flight instruction as improper.	State says instruction correctly reflects evidence of flight and consciousness of guilt.	Flight instruction properly given; supported by evidence.
Whether Lara's Rule 404(b) testimony about July/August 2009 meth use was admissible	Lara testimony about other acts should be excluded for lack of notice.	Testimony admissible as 404(b) evidence with limiting instruction.	Admission reversible error for lack of 404(b) notice; harmless given strong evidence of guilt.
Whether the 2005 cocaine conviction evidence was admissible under Rule 404(b)	Prior conviction used to prove knowledge/intent should be admissible.	Prior conviction risks unfair prejudice; probative value uncertain.	Harmless error; limiting instruction reduces prejudice; conviction upheld.

Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (U.S. 1981) (right to counsel during custodial interrogation)
Duckworth v. Eagan, 492 U.S. 195 (U.S. 1989) (counsel need not be immediately available; appointment when available)
Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (U.S. 1994) (clarity of request for counsel governs cessation of questioning)
United States v. Martinez, 190 F.3d 673 (5th Cir. 1999) (flight instruction proper when four inferences supported)
United States v. Murphy, 996 F.2d 94 (5th Cir. 1993) (flight evidence requirements)
United States v. Williams, 900 F.2d 823 (5th Cir. 1990) (intrinsic vs extrinsic 404(b) evidence framework)