Establishing the Framework for Admitting Prior Drug Convictions under Rule 404(b) and Constructive Possession in Drug Distribution Cases

Introduction

United States v. Diangilo Antuan Bell, decided by the Eleventh Circuit on January 14, 2025, addresses three core issues in a methamphetamine distribution prosecution: the admissibility of prior-act evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), the sufficiency of evidence to support a finding of constructive possession and intent to distribute, and the district court’s attribution of drug quantity for sentencing. The Government appealed from the Northern District of Georgia’s conviction and sentence of Diangilo Antuan Bell, who contested admission of his 2014 drug convictions, moved for acquittal under Rule 29, and challenged the sentencing court’s drug-quantity determination.

Summary of the Judgment

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed Bell’s conviction and sentence in full. It held:

The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of Bell’s 2014 drug convictions under Rule 404(b) because it was probative of intent, knowledge, and absence of mistake, and its prejudicial effect was mitigated by limiting instructions.
A reasonable jury could infer, from the totality of the evidence, that Bell knowingly possessed nearly 3 kilograms of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, so the denial of his Rule 29 motion was proper.
The sentencing court properly attributed 2,980 grams of actual methamphetamine to Bell by a preponderance of the evidence—relying on expert testimony and reports—and the Guidelines enhancement did not violate the Sixth Amendment because it altered only the advisory range, not statutory maxima.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

The court grounded its decision on binding Eleventh Circuit authority addressing each contested issue:

Rule 404(b) Admission: United States v. Barron-Soto, 820 F.3d 409 (11th Cir. 2016), establishing the three-part test (relevance to permissible purpose, sufficient proof of the act, and Rule 403 balance).
Probative Value vs. Prejudice: United States v. Costa, 947 F.2d 919 (11th Cir. 1991), on evaluating whether extrinsic-act evidence is necessary given other strong proof.
Temporal Proximity/Sexual Offense Analogy: United States v. Matthews, 431 F.3d 1296 (11th Cir. 2005), refusing a bright-line rule for remoteness and emphasizing district court discretion.
Sufficiency of Evidence/Constructive Possession: United States v. Woodard, 531 F.3d 1352 (11th Cir. 2008), and United States v. Stanley, 24 F.3d 1314 (11th Cir. 1994), clarifying actual and constructive possession and the “nexus” requirement.
Drug-Quantity Determination: United States v. Reeves, 742 F.3d 487 (11th Cir. 2014), on the standard of proof and permissible evidence for sentencing.
Sixth Amendment/Judicial Fact-Finding: Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013), and United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), distinguishing facts that expose a defendant to higher statutory penalties from those that inform the advisory Guidelines.

2. Legal Reasoning

The Eleventh Circuit applied well-established doctrines to Bell’s appeals:

Rule 404(b) Analysis: The court verified each prong of Barron-Soto: (a) the 2014 convictions were relevant to prove intent, knowledge, and absence of mistake; (b) there was ample evidence that Bell committed those prior acts; and (c) any prejudice did not substantially outweigh probative value because Bell’s intent was genuinely contested, the prior offenses were similar in nature, and the district court gave a clear limiting instruction.
Sufficiency of Evidence for Constructive Possession: Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, the appellate court found:
- Bell owned and controlled the vehicle where 3 kilograms of methamphetamine were hidden.
- His evasive driving maneuvers and attempt to draw attention to marijuana evinced consciousness of guilt.
- The large quantity and kilogram-packaging suggested distribution, not personal use.
These factors satisfied Woodard’s elements of possession, knowledge, and intent.
Drug-Quantity Determination at Sentencing: Reliance on expert testimony and lab reports enabled the district court to find, by a preponderance, that the recovered mixture was 99% pure. Under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(2), almost 2,980 grams of actual methamphetamine mandated a base offense level 36. Because this finding did not increase Bell’s statutory maximum or minimum, Apprendi/Alleyne did not bar judicial fact-finding.

3. Impact

United States v. Bell reinforces key principles in federal drug prosecutions:

It affirms that courts enjoy broad latitude to admit prior-act evidence under Rule 404(b) when intent, knowledge, or absence of mistake are genuinely in dispute.
It underscores that constructive possession may be established by vehicle ownership, control of the premises, and behavior indicative of guilt.
It clarifies that judicial determination of drug quantity for advisory Guidelines enhancements—supported by reliable expert evidence—does not implicate the Sixth Amendment so long as statutory penalties remain unchanged.

Future litigants will cite Bell when contesting or defending Rule 404(b) rulings, sufficiency challenges in constructive possession contexts, and sentencing-stage drug quantity calculations.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Rule 404(b): Bars evidence of prior wrongs used solely to show a defendant’s bad character but allows it to prove other things—like intent—if the probative value outweighs prejudice.
Constructive Possession: Even if you’re not holding contraband, you can “possess” it if you control the area where it is and know it’s there.
Preponderance of the Evidence: A lower proof standard than “beyond a reasonable doubt”; something is more likely true than not (51% vs. 49%).
Advisory Sentencing Guidelines: Recommendations for judges on how harshly to punish; judges can make certain fact-findings to adjust ranges so long as they don’t increase the maximum allowed by statute.

Conclusion

United States v. Bell solidifies the Eleventh Circuit’s pragmatic approach to evidentiary rulings under Rule 404(b), affirms the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence in constructive possession cases, and clarifies that judicial fact-finding at sentencing—when tied to advisory Guidelines—survives Sixth Amendment scrutiny so long as statutory limits are respected. Its structured application of binding precedents offers clear guidance for trial and appellate courts in the realm of federal drug prosecutions.