U.S. v. Baker

In prosecution on drug distribution charge, Dist. Ct. did not commit plain error in admitting evidence of defendant's uncharged bad acts involving testimony that defendant routinely gave crack cocaine to others for purpose of future sale, even though govt. had failed to identify witness giving said testimony in its Rule 404(b) notice of intent to present said testimony. Govt. did include name of other witness in said notice that would have given similar testimony, and disputed evidence was relevant to establish defendant's knowledge and intent where defendant had denied possession of crack cocaine at issue in charged offense. Moreover, admission of said evidence did not affect defendant's substantial rights where govt. offered other evidence to establish defendant's guilt based on defendant's flight from arresting officer and on officer's testimony that he found significant amount of crack cocaine on ground near where defendant was initially apprehended.