
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Samuel Latrell JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 02-51329.
    Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Jan. 5, 2004.
    Ellen A. Lockwood, Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant US Attorney, US Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Evers Jason Leach, Law Offices of E Jason Leach, Odessa, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Samuel Latrell Johnson appeals his jury trial conviction for conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute and possession with the intent to distribute 50 grams or more of cocaine base (crack), in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. He challenges the admission of testimony by the cooperating co-defendant, Heath, that for several years prior to the events giving rise to the indictment, Johnson and Heath were partners in crack-trafficking.

We review the admission of evidence for abuse of discretion. United States v. Royal, 972 F.2d 643, 645 (5th Cir.1992). Johnson asserts that the district court abused its discretion by admitting the evidence under Fed.R.Evid. 403. Johnson further contends that the testimony was inadmissible because it constituted extrinsic evidence of extraneous offenses. Johnson cites cases which involved the application of FedR.Evid. 404(b).

Heath’s testimony concerning his drug-trafficking partnership with Johnson was intrinsic background information which established their relationship as co-conspirators. See United States v. Miranda, 248 F.3d 434, 440-41 (5th Cir.2001); United States v. Krout, 66 F.3d 1420, 1431 (5th Cir.1995). Accordingly, the admission of this testimony was not an abuse of discretion.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. (MO-Ol-CR-143-2).

AFFIRMED 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     