United States v. Huey Williams, Jr., 708 F. App'x 826

Williams owned Hermann Medical Supply and submitted Medicare claims for expensive custom braces while providing cheaper neoprene braces, resulting in $3.4M in false claims and $1.96M paid by Medicare.
Williams’s wife Marsha signed the Medicare provider application in 2005; she did not disclose Williams’s ownership/management and testified she signed because “he told me it would be difficult for him to start the business because of his past.”
Williams had prior felony and misdemeanor convictions; he moved pretrial to exclude any testimony or references to his criminal history under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b).
The government limited questioning and told the court it would not elicit details of prior convictions; the district court allowed Marsha’s brief statement to be admitted and Williams did not request a limiting instruction or testify.
A jury convicted Williams of aiding and abetting health care fraud; he was sentenced to 63 months and $1.96M restitution and appealed the admission of Marsha’s testimony.

Issue	Williams’s Argument	Government’s Argument	Held
Whether Marsha’s statement that Williams’s “past” prevented him from signing the Medicare application was inadmissible Rule 404(b) evidence	The vague reference improperly alluded to prior crimes and thus was impermissible propensity evidence under Rule 404(b)	The statement was either too vague to be 404(b) or was intrinsic to the charged scheme and therefore admissible	Court held the remark was not 404(b) evidence because it did not constitute proof of a prior act and was intrinsic to the scheme; admission was proper
Whether the statement should have been excluded under Rule 403 as unfairly prejudicial	The remark's prejudicial impact outweighed any probative value given its reference to criminal history	The statement had probative value (showing intent and context) and the limited, vague reference minimized prejudice	Court held the district court did not abuse its discretion under Rule 403; probative value was not substantially outweighed by prejudice

Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (limits use of prior convictions to show propensity)
Michelson v. United States, 335 U.S. 469 (prior trouble with the law generally inadmissible to show propensity)
Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681 (interpretation of Rule 404(b) and standard for admitting other-act evidence)
United States v. Beechum, 582 F.2d 898 (5th Cir.) (standard for proving extrinsic-act evidence occurred and that defendant was actor)
United States v. Freeman, 434 F.3d 369 (intrinsic evidence falls outside Rule 404(b))
United States v. Crawley, 533 F.3d 349 (distinguishing intrinsic from extrinsic evidence)