about fraud in some manner; it is relevant because of the details it offers. The book excerpts, therefore, were clearly relevant to a determination of whether Kahari intended to commit the various frauds with which he was charged. As a final matter regarding proper purposes, we do not rely on the district court’s reasoning that, because the details in the book and the facts surrounding the alleged crime were similar, the book was evidence of Kahari’s modus operandi. See J.A. 169-70. Proof of “modus operandi” is generally used to demonstrate identity, and Kahari’s identity was not at issue in this case. See Perry, 438 F.3d at 648 (permitting “signature” evidence when identity was “the largest single issue in this case”); Chavez v. City of Albuquerque, 402 F.3d 1039, 1046 (10th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). Of course, the mere fact that a district
holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding hearsay evidence and evidence that violated the best evidence rule in deciding a summary judgment motion holding that a district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the testimony of a witness that was not highly probative holding lower court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence because proof of a modus operandi is only relevant when there is an issue regarding the defendants identity holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding testimony of mechanical engineer in products liability case involving automobile because expert did not have specific experience regarding subject matter of lawsuit holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence based upon the defendants noncompliance with the deadlines in rule 412c