United States v. Tou Chi Fang, 844 F.3d 775

On Nov. 6, 2014 St. Paul police executed a warrant-authorized search of a unit; officers encountered Tou Chi Fang and a suspect, who moved toward a kitchen area when ordered to the ground.
Officers observed Fang put his hand in his pocket, resist removing it, and then (according to one officer) slide a plastic bag under a table; cash fell from Fang’s pocket during the encounter.
Under the table officers recovered a plastic bag containing ~25 grams of methamphetamine and a bungee cord; Fang had ~$3,900 in small bills and a plastic bag containing ten small zip-type bags on his person.
The government introduced testimony about Fang’s prior state convictions for meth possession (2006 and 2012), each involving discarded bags of meth recovered by police; the district court gave a limiting instruction that the prior-conviction testimony could be used only to prove knowledge/intent.
Fang moved for judgment of acquittal at close of the government’s case; the district court denied the motion, Fang rested, a jury convicted him of possession with intent to distribute, and the court sentenced him to 110 months’ imprisonment.

Issue	Fang’s Argument	Government’s Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence to convict under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)	Testimonial discrepancies between officers (one saw bag exit pocket; the other did not) and lack of direct proof of distribution intent make conviction unreasonable	Circumstantial evidence (25 g meth, $3,900 in small bills, 10 small bags) plus officers’ testimony supports both possession and intent to distribute	Affirmed — viewing evidence in light most favorable to verdict, a reasonable jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt
Admissibility of prior drug-conviction testimony under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)	Prior convictions were offered only to show propensity, were too remote, and unduly prejudicial	Prior convictions were relevant to knowledge/intent, not overly remote given incarceration timeline, and limiting instruction mitigated prejudice	Affirmed — district court did not abuse discretion admitting prior convictions; probative value outweighed prejudice

United States v. Griffith, 786 F.3d 1098 (de novo review standard for denial of judgment of acquittal)
United States v. Serrano–Lopez, 366 F.3d 628 (elements of conviction and standard for sufficiency review)
United States v. Ojeda, 23 F.3d 1473 (circumstantial evidence can establish intent to distribute)
United States v. Tyerman, 701 F.3d 552 (404(b) admissibility criteria and balancing)
United States v. Gaddy, 532 F.3d 783 (prior convictions relevant to knowledge; limiting instruction efficacy)
United States v. Trogdon, 575 F.3d 762 (prior conviction admitted despite 11-year gap)
United States v. Thomas, 398 F.3d 1058 (limiting instructions reduce danger of unfair prejudice)