Reschly

MEMORANDUM *

Phillip Jay Reschly appeals from his conviction and sentence for importing marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We affirm.

I

Reschly argues that three prior convictions and his 1997 arrest statements should not have been admitted. We disagree. They were admissible to show motive and knowledge. That Reschly had previously possessed methamphetamine in personal use quantity on three occasions tends to prove that he would perform a service for someone who would offer him a “party,” which his statements indicate meant using drugs. Thus, his prior drug use (whether or not it amounted to an addiction) was linked to the offer to party at the end of the trips. Cf. United States v. Miranda, 986 F.2d 1283 (9th Cir.1993); United States v. Labansat, 94 F.3d 527 (9th Cir.1996). The admissibility of Reschly’s statement about what “partying” meant to him does not turn on Rule 404(b), as he suggests, because it is a party admission. In any event, what Reschly meant by a “party” is relevant and not unduly prejudicial because it explains his own statement about what he expected for driving. This, combined with evidence that he drove two cars across the border on the…