United States v. Deonte Reed, 459 F. App'x 644

Deonte Reed was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to interfere with commerce by robbery and conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute, with related firearm and aiding-and-abetting charges.
The district court sentenced Reed to 240 months, 180 months concurrently, and 60 months consecutive for the counts, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed.
Reed challenged the denial of a motion in limine and the admission of evidence regarding his subsequent criminal activity.
The government pursued an entrapment defense challenge, requiring proof of predisposition or lack of government inducement.
The court analyzed predisposition using five factors and considered the admissibility of other-crimes evidence under Rule 404(b) and the instruction given to the jury.
The court held the district court did not abuse its discretion and affirmed the conviction and sentences.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of post-encounter conduct as predisposition evidence	Reed argues the district court erred in admitting post-encounter conduct to prove predisposition.	Government contends the evidence is relevant to Reed's character and predisposition and admissible under 404(b).	No reversible error; evidence admissible for predisposition and 404(b) purposes.
Effect of Jury Instruction No. 8 on prejudice and accuracy	Reed claims Instruction No. 8 was prejudicial and misdescribed the law.	Government maintains the instruction correctly limited the admissible evidence to its proper purposes.	Instruction was proper and not prejudicial; no abuse of discretion.
Entrapment framework and predisposition analysis	Reed argues the court failed to apply the entrapment standard correctly.	Government urges correct application of the five-factor predisposition test and related law.	Court properly applied the predisposition framework and upheld the ruling.

United States v. Mejia, 559 F.3d 1113 (9th Cir. 2009) (entrapment standard: predisposition or lack of inducement)
United States v. Poehlman, 217 F.3d 692 (9th Cir. 2000) (predisposition analysis framework)
United States v. Williams, 547 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 2008) (five-factor predisposition test; character as essential element)
United States v. Thomas, 134 F.3d 975 (9th Cir. 1998) (character evidence and essential-element discussion under FRE 405)
Gambini v. Total Renal Care, Inc., 486 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir. 2007) (prejudicial versus adequate jury guidance assessment)
United States v. Frega, 179 F.3d 793 (9th Cir. 1999) (standard for evaluating jury instructions)