United States v. Noe Juarez, 866 F.3d 622

Noe Juarez, a 20-year Houston police veteran, was convicted of (1) conspiring to distribute ≥5 kg cocaine and (2) conspiring to possess firearms in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime; he was sentenced to 365 months (Count 1) and 240 months concurrent (Count 2).
Government alleged Juarez used his police position to assist the Grimaldo drug organization by providing firearms, body armor, scanners, vehicles, and advice to evade law enforcement; three coconspirators testified against him.
The district court admitted audio/video recordings and testimony about Juarez’s participation in two prior uncharged conspiracies (Gallegos and Casteneda) under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) to prove intent.
The court gave a deliberate-ignorance jury instruction, permitting the jury to infer knowledge if Juarez deliberately closed his eyes to obvious illegal conduct; the jury convicted on both counts.
At sentencing the court applied a four-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.5 based on Juarez’s sale of bulletproof vests to coconspirators, raising the Guidelines range from 188–235 to 292–365 months.
On appeal the Fifth Circuit affirmed the convictions (404(b) admission and instruction ok) but held the § 3B1.5 body-armor enhancement was misapplied to sales (not "use"), vacated the sentence, and remanded for resentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admission of extrinsic (404(b)) evidence	Government: extrinsic evidence was necessary to prove intent and rebut Juarez’s ignorance defense	Juarez: prejudicial effect of extensive, similar prior-act evidence substantially outweighed probative value	Affirmed — district court did not abuse discretion; need, similarity, temporal proximity, and limiting instructions justified admission
Deliberate-ignorance jury instruction	Government: evidence supported instruction because Juarez was subjectively aware of a high probability of illegal conduct and purposefully avoided confirming it	Juarez: instruction risked convicting for should-have-known negligence and was unsupported by evidence	Affirmed — evidence satisfied both prongs (subjective awareness and purposeful contrivance) so instruction was permissible
Sentencing § 3B1.5 body-armor enhancement	Government: selling vests should count as "use" (including barter-like exchanges) and fits guideline purpose	Juarez: guideline’s commentary defines "use" as active employment or bartering (non-monetary exchange); sale for money is not "barter" so enhancement misapplied	Reversed as to sentence — sale of body armor is not covered by § 3B1.5’s defined "use"; error was not harmless, so sentence vacated and remanded for resentencing

Beechum v. United States, 582 F.2d 898 (5th Cir. 1978) (establishes two-step test for admissibility of extrinsic-offense evidence under Rule 404(b))
Smith v. United States, 804 F.3d 724 (5th Cir. 2015) (404(b) similarity and temporal-proximity considerations in balancing probative value and prejudice)
Jackson v. United States, 339 F.3d 349 (5th Cir. 2003) (need for extrinsic evidence when defendant claims to be merely ignorant participant)
Nguyen v. United States, 493 F.3d 613 (5th Cir. 2007) (standards for proving subjective awareness and purposeful contrivance for deliberate-ignorance instruction)
Jones v. United States, 664 F.3d 966 (5th Cir. 2011) (deliberate-ignorance requires evidence of conscious effort to avoid confirmation of suspected illegality)
Martinez-Romero v. United States, 817 F.3d 917 (5th Cir. 2016) (harmless-error framework for Guideline-calculation errors at sentencing)