explaining the context, motive, and set-up of the crime, is properly admitted if linked in time and circumstances with the charged crime, or forms an integral and natural part of an account of the crime, or is necessary to complete the story of the crime for the jury. And evidence is inextricably intertwined with the evidence regarding the charged offense if it forms an integral and natural part of the witness’s accounts of the circumstances surrounding the offenses for which the defendant was indicted. Nonetheless, evidence of criminal activity other than the charged offense, whether inside or outside the scope of Rule 404(b), must still satisfy the requirements of Rule 403. Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted). See United States v. Fortenberry, 971 F.2d 717, 721 (11th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). i. Miller’s History of Drug Dealing In the
holding that evidence showing how a witness came to know the defendant as a cocaine dealer was admissible as inextricably intertwined holding that prior conviction shall be admissible evidence for impeachment purposes unless danger of undue prejudice substantially outweighs probative value holding in a criminal context that the probative value of evidence of other crimes is not substantially outweighed by danger of unfair prejudice where the court will give a limiting jury charge holding that inextricably intertwined evidence is intrinsic evidence that is admissible if its probative value outweighs the danger of prejudice holding that evidence should be excluded where the likelihood that it would confuse the jury and protract the proceedings outweighs its probative value