is no record of the underlying facts.”). 14 . Bridges correctly points out that in United States v. Donaghe, 50 F.3d 608 (9th Cir.1995), the Ninth Circuit declined to examine "the specific circumstances of this case” in concluding that the defendant’s instant crime of passport fraud was not similar to his prior convictions for child molestation. Id. at 612. But the government did not contend that the underlying facts of those crimes were similar; it contended only that their motives were similar because the passport fraud was committed to escape an investigation into a new charge of child molestation. To resolve Bridges’ case, we need not decide whether similarity can be based solely on motive. Compare Donaghe, supra, with United States v. Dzielinski, 914 F.2d 98, 101-02 (7th Cir.1990)
holding that instant offense of bank robbery was similar to prior conviction for fraud because robberys motive was to repay victim of another of defendants fraudulent schemes holding judge in bank robbery prosecution did not abuse discretion in refusing to excuse juror whose wife was bank employee or juror whose daughter had been victim of bank robbery holding evidence of defendants prior drug use and heroin addiction admissible to establish defendants motive to commit robbery holding the harmed victim need not be the victim of the offense of conviction holding that argument regarding victim of prior offense was improper