## Facts

- A deputy sheriff stopped a Nissan on Interstate 10 after observing erratic lane changes.
- As the vehicle moved to the shoulder, officers saw a small plastic bag fly from the driver’s side.
- John Derrick Skipper, the driver and owner, exited and was arrested; a passenger remained in the car.
- Officers recovered the bag from the roadside and found 2.89 grams of crack cocaine.
- A search of the Nissan revealed one straight-edge razor between the front seats.
- At trial, the government introduced a certified judgment reflecting a prior guilty plea for controlled-substance possession, supported by fingerprint identification tying the record to Skipper.
- The government also introduced a certified deferred-adjudication order for “John D. Skipper” placing him on probation for controlled-substance possession, but it lacked fingerprints and the government offered no identifying link to Skipper.
- A jury convicted Skipper of possession of crack cocaine with intent to distribute under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Skipper possessed crack cocaine with intent to distribute, rather than for personal use.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by admitting, under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), an unlinked deferred-adjudication order, and if so, whether the error was harmless.

## Decision

- The court reversed the conviction for possession with intent to distribute, vacated the sentence, and remanded for sentencing on the lesser-included offense of simple possession.
- The court held the evidence was insufficient to prove intent to distribute where the government relied mainly on 2.89 grams of crack, a single razor, and generalized expert testimony, with no additional distribution indicators.
- The court held admission of the deferred-adjudication order was error because the government did not establish that the defendant was the person named in the order.
- The court concluded the evidentiary error was harmless given the properly authenticated prior conviction admitted under Rule 404(b) and the limiting instruction on the permitted use of such evidence.

## Legal Principles

- Sufficiency review asks whether any rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt when viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict.
- Intent to distribute may be inferred from drug quantity and surrounding circumstances, but a small quantity consistent with personal use, without corroborating distribution evidence (e.g., packaging materials, scales, cash, communications devices, or sales evidence), may be insufficient.
- Rule 404(b) evidence must be adequately connected to the defendant through reliable identification (such as fingerprints or other competent proof).
- Erroneous admission of other-acts evidence can be harmless when it did not affect the verdict in light of the full record, including other properly admitted evidence and limiting instructions.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit concluded that the government’s proof showed knowing possession but not intent to distribute, because the small quantity of crack and minimal paraphernalia did not support a distribution inference absent additional indicia of dealing; it also held that admitting an unlinked deferred-adjudication order was error but harmless, and remanded for sentencing on simple possession.


United States v. Skipper, 74 F.3d 608 (5th Cir. 1996)