B 1981)). 54 . Fed.R.Evid. 404(b)(1). 55 . Id. 404(b)(2). 56 . United States v. Beechum, 582 F.2d 898, 911 (5th Cir.1978). 57 . United States v. Freeman, 434 F.3d 369, 374 (5th Cir.2005). 58 . Id. (quoting United States v. Williams, 900 F.2d 823, 825 (5th Cir.1990)). 59 . See United States v. Coleman, 78 F.3d 154, 156 (5th Cir.1996) ("[Intrinsic] evidence is admissible to complete the story of the crime by proving the immediate context of events in time and place."). 60 . United States v. Brooks, 681 F.3d 678, 699 (5th Cir.2012), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 133 S.C 1991 amendments. 67 . See id. 103(a) ("A party may claim error in a ruling to admit or exclude evidence only if the error affects a substanti . 406 advisory committee’s notes, 1972 proposed rules). 82 . Leonard, 499 F.3d at 442 (<HOLDING>). 83 . Id. 84 . United States v.
holding that even if an insurance broker is the agent of the insurance company for purposes of soliciting and procuring the policy that would not necessarily make the broker the agent of the insurance company for the purpose of receiving notice of suits and claims holding that a district court abused its discretion in admitting comments an insurance agent made to five clients over the course of a decade when the record demonstrated the agent had sold nearly two hundred such policies holding that the employer was not the insurers agent holding district court abused its discretion in admitting state court findings of fact holding the trial court had abused its discretion in admitting several photographs of a murder victims body