value was outweighed by its prejudicial effect. Substantial deference is due a district court’s evidentiary rulings, see General Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 141, 118 S.Ct. 512, 139 L.Ed.2d 508 (1997), and Rule 404(b) decisions by the district court are discretionary and will not be overturned unless arbitrary and irrational, see United States v. Powers, 59 F.3d 1460, 1464 (4th Cir.1995). We conclude the district court correctly found that the evidence of the Davis’s other burglaries was relevant and necessary to prove motive, intent, and identification. We also conclude the evidence was reliable because the prior bad acts evidence consisted of undisputed scientific DNA evidence and facts to which Davis stipulated. See United States v. Bailey, 990 F.2d 119, 123 (4th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). Although Davis vehemently argues that the
holding that it is not holding that a jury could not be instructed that attempted murder can be committed knowingly holding new trial should not have been granted because jury was properly instructed holding improperly admitted testimony was cumulative to the other properly admitted evidence and was therefore harmless holding that rule 404b evidence should ordinarily be admitted as reliable unless it is so preposterous that it could not be believed by a rational and properly instructed juror