United States v. Enrique Abarca, 61 F.4th 578

Enrique Steven Abarca was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine with two prior serious drug felonies and sentenced to 324 months' imprisonment.
The government presented testimony from Michael Muhle, who began selling meth with Abarca three months after the charged conspiracy ended; Muhle was not part of the charged conspiracy.
The government did not file a formal Rule 404(b) written notice regarding Muhle’s testimony but provided Abarca with a report of Muhle’s pretrial interview.
Muhle testified about Abarca’s knowledge, intent, and plans to obtain meth from California, including a single statement that Abarca said he would trade guns for meth.
The jury also heard testimony from cooperating co-conspirators, intercepted mail containing roughly five pounds of meth, postal records, wire-transfer records, phone records, and drug-sale records.
Abarca appealed, arguing (1) the government failed to comply with Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(3) notice requirements; (2) Muhle’s testimony was inadmissible and unduly prejudicial; and (3) the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict. The Eighth Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the government complied with Rule 404(b)(3) notice requirements for Muhle’s testimony	Abarca: gov failed to provide the written notice required by Rule 404(b)(3)	Govt: pretrial interview report constituted sufficient, flexible notice	Error in formal notice but, under plain-error review, omission did not affect substantial rights given overwhelming evidence; affirmation
Whether Muhle’s testimony was admissible under Rule 404(b) and not unduly prejudicial	Abarca: testimony was impermissible propensity evidence and turned the case into a violent conspiracy (guns)	Govt: testimony relevant to intent/knowledge, similar to other evidence, and limiting instruction mitigated prejudice	Admission proper under 404(b) factors; limiting instruction reduced prejudice; no abuse of discretion
Whether the evidence was sufficient to convict of the charged conspiracy	Abarca: evidence insufficient to prove agreement, knowledge, and joining the conspiracy	Govt: multiple cooperating witnesses corroborated by intercepted package, postal and wire records, phone records, and sale logs	Evidence sufficient; reasonable jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; affirmation

United States v. Loomis, 954 F.3d 1184 (8th Cir. 2020) (plain-error standard for unpreserved evidentiary objections)
United States v. Poitra, 648 F.3d 884 (8th Cir. 2011) (elements of plain-error review)
United States v. DNRB, Inc., 895 F.3d 1063 (8th Cir. 2018) (Rule 404(b) admissibility framework and notice discussion)
United States v. Tillman, 765 F.3d 831 (8th Cir. 2014) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
United States v. Mann, 701 F.3d 274 (8th Cir. 2012) (conspiracy sufficiency review burden)
United States v. Davis, 826 F.3d 1078 (8th Cir. 2016) (elements required to prove a drug conspiracy)
United States v. Ferguson, 29 F.4th 998 (8th Cir. 2022) (appellate court will not reweigh witness credibility)