Nava

MEMORANDUM **

Defendant Victor Robert Nava, Sr., appeals his conviction for conspiracy to possess various controlled substances with intent to distribute them, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a) and 846. We affirm.

1. The “other acts” evidence to which Defendant objects came from the testimony of Jaime Nevarez, who said that he had bought large quantities of methamphetamine for Defendant several times between 1991 and 1994. Defendant’s main defense was that the drugs found in the storage areas did not belong to him, and that the drugs found in the house belonged to his daughter. Thus he placed the elements of intent and knowledge in issue, making the evidence relevant for a purpose other than to show propensity. United States v. Castillo, 181 F.3d 1129, 1134 (9th Cir.1999).

Defendant’s core argument is that the earlier events were too remote in time to be admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). There is no bright-line rule requiring the court to exclude evidence of other acts after a certain period has elapsed. United States v. Spillone, 879 F.2d 514, 519 (9th Cir.1989). United States v. Brown, 880 F.2d 1012 , 1015 n. 3 (9th Cir.1989), on which Defendant relies, was not to the…