United States v. Courtney

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
August 24, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-11138
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MATTHEW C. COURTNEY, also known as Pretty Boy,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:06-CR-43-1
--------------------
Before WIENER, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges
PER CURIAM:*
Matthew C. Courtney appeals his conviction and sentence for
conspiracy to possess and dispose of stolen firearms, being a
felon in possession of a firearm, and possession of stolen
firearms. Courtney argues that the district court abused its
discretion by admitting extrinsic evidence of his prior arrest
for violating a protective order. He argues that the evidence
was not admissible under the two-part test for FED. R. EVID.
404(b) evidence articulated in United States v. Beechum, 582 F.2d
898, 911 (5th Cir. 1978) (en banc). He further asserts that the

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 06-11138
-2-
error in admitting this evidence was not harmless. The
Government responds by arguing that the evidence was intrinsic
and therefore not subject to the requirements of Rule 404(b).
Evidence that Chuck Kershner knew and dated Carla Courtney
and that Matthew Courtney came to his residence is “background
information establishing the connection between a witness and a
defendant.” United States v. Miranda, 248 F.3d 434, 441 (5th
Cir. 2001). Thus, testimony regarding those matters is
intrinsic. However, evidence of Courtney’s arrest for violating
a protective order does not provide relevant background
information. Nor is it “inextricably intertwined” or “part of
the single criminal episode.” United States v. Coleman, 78 F.3d
154, 156 (5th Cir. 1996). As such, testimony relating to
Courtney’s prior arrest was extrinsic evidence.
Evidence that Courtney was arrested for violating a
protective order is not relevant to an issue other than his
character, and therefore, the district court abused its
discretion by admitting the evidence. See Beechum, 582 F.2d at
911. However, the error was harmless because the evidence of
Courtney’s guilt was overwhelming. See United States v. Farias-
Farias, 925 F.2d 805, 811-12 (5th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, the
judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --