United States v. James Harding, 104 F.4th 1291

James Harding was charged with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute heroin, and possession with intent to distribute heroin, for conduct ending in April 2019 in the Southern District of Alabama.
In September 2021, federal agents seized firearms and nearly two kilograms of heroin from Harding’s home in the Northern District of Alabama, over two years after the end of the alleged conspiracy.
The government sought to admit evidence of the 2021 search to establish Harding’s intent, arguing it was either intrinsic to the conspiracy or admissible as Rule 404(b) extrinsic evidence of intent.
The district court admitted the evidence both as intrinsic and, in the alternative, as extrinsic under Rule 404(b), but denied Harding’s request for a limiting instruction.
The jury returned a guilty verdict and Harding was sentenced to 960 months in prison; he appealed the evidentiary rulings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility as Intrinsic Evidence	Evidence from 2021 search is too remote and unrelated to be intrinsic to the charged conspiracy	Evidence can be intrinsic as part of a pattern or ongoing transactions linked to the earlier conspiracy	Admission as intrinsic evidence was abuse of discretion; evidence was not sufficiently linked to the conspiracy
Harmless Error	Admission of 2021 search evidence prejudiced Harding’s trial given the weak corroboration for key witness	Other evidence supported the verdict, so any error was harmless	Error was not harmless; key witness credibility and lack of corroboration meant the evidence likely affected the verdict
Admissibility under Rule 404(b)	Rule 404(b) not satisfied; evidence admitted only to show bad character; alternative, court must give limiting instruction	Evidence is probative of intent and thus admissible; no need to provide limiting instruction	Evidence admissible under Rule 404(b) but district court abused discretion by not giving limiting instruction
Requirement of Limiting Instruction	Failure to give limiting instruction allowed improper consideration of evidence and unfair prejudice	Harding abandoned this argument or instruction was not necessary	Harding preserved argument; limiting instruction was required, and failure to give it was error

United States v. Horner, 853 F.3d 1201 (11th Cir. 2017) (defines when uncharged acts are intrinsic evidence as part of same ongoing criminal plan)
United States v. Muscatell, 42 F.3d 627 (11th Cir. 1995) (intrinsic evidence must involve closely connected acts and actors)
United States v. Holt, 777 F.3d 1234 (11th Cir. 2015) (prior acts admissible as necessary to complete the story of charged crime)
United States v. Edouard, 485 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2007) (intrinsic evidence must be inextricably intertwined with charged crime)
United States v. Smith, 741 F.3d 1211 (11th Cir. 2013) (Rule 404(b) evidence of prior drug acts is highly probative of intent)