United States v. Hall, 2:14-cr-00321

Defendant Justin Loper was charged in a Superseding Indictment with conspiracy and multiple robberies (18 U.S.C. § 1951) and with brandishing a firearm in furtherance of crimes of violence (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)).
The Government seeks to admit evidence of three 2007 Nevada convictions: conspiracy to commit robbery, robbery with use of a deadly weapon, and second-degree kidnapping with use of a deadly weapon.
Government argues the 2007 conspiracy and robbery convictions are similar to the charged 2013–2014 robberies (group armed robberies, vehicle use, one man armed, victims robbed of cash/phones) and are admissible under FRE 404(b) to show intent, plan, identity, knowledge, and absence of mistake.
Defendant contends the 2007 convictions are too remote and highly prejudicial under FRE 403 and thus should be excluded.
The court found the 2007 conspiracy and robbery convictions sufficiently similar and timely (6–7 years later) to be admissible under FRE 404(b) and not substantially outweighed by prejudice under FRE 403, but ordered a limiting jury instruction.
The court excluded the 2007 second-degree kidnapping conviction because its elements (seizure/secret imprisonment/transport) were not similar to the charged robberies and thus failed the Arambula‑Ruiz similarity prong for 404(b).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility under FRE 404(b) of 2007 conspiracy & robbery convictions	Prior acts are similar in modus operandi and show intent, plan, identity, knowledge, absence of mistake	Prior convictions are remote in time and thus lack probative value	Admissible: similarities and 6–7 year gap not too remote under Ninth Circuit standards
Exclusion under FRE 403 of 2007 conspiracy & robbery convictions	Probative value of prior similar acts outweighs prejudice; supports key issues	Admission would cause unfair prejudice and confuse jury	Not excluded; court requires limiting instruction to mitigate propensity inference
Admissibility under FRE 404(b) of 2007 kidnapping conviction	Proffers prior conviction generally as similar prior conduct	Argues dissimilarity; kidnapping elements differ from robbery facts	Excluded: kidnapping conviction is not sufficiently similar to charged conduct for 404(b)
Requirement for jury instruction	Government did not object to limiting instruction language	Defense seeks to limit prejudice	Court ordered parties to propose appropriate limiting jury instruction

Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171 (preponderance standard for preliminary admissibility questions)
Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38 (in limine rulings non-binding and subject to change at trial)
Ohler v. United States, 529 U.S. 753 (in limine rulings can be revisited during trial)
United States v. Arambula-Ruiz, 987 F.2d 599 (four-part test for admitting other-act evidence under FRE 404(b))
United States v. Rude, 88 F.3d 1538 (no bright-line rule on remoteness; similar acts up to 12 years admitted)
United States v. Ross, 886 F.2d 264 (prior similar acts 13 years old not necessarily too remote)
United States v. Johnson, 820 F.2d 1065 (recognizing inherent prejudice from prior-crime evidence)
United States v. Bailleaux, 685 F.2d 1105 (probative evidence that tends to establish guilt is not automatically excludable under Rule 403)