would help solve the crime.... ” Motive is one of the permissible purposes listed in Rule 404(b) not because the “why” helps solve a crime, but because it is highly relevant to show that a defendant had a motivation to commit the crime for which he is being charged. In a case like this, where Lee is asserting that he never had a gun on the day in question, it is important to know that he had a personal motivation to possess a gun. Indeed, someone who is involved in an ongoing feud — a feud during which guns have been used — is far more likely to have a gun in his possession than someone who is not involved in such a feud. United States v. Lee, 612 F.3d 170, 187 n. 19 (3d Cir.2010) (citation omitted and emphasis added); see also United States v. Harris, 587 F.3d 861, 868 (7th Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Weems, 322 F.3d 18, 25 (1st
holding that evidence of gang involvement was properly admitted to prove motive for participating in the alleged crimes holding appellate counsel did not provide ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to appeal district courts decision to admit evidence that defendant was a member of a gang because gang membership was relevant to show motive and intent holding the district court properly admitted expert testimony on defendants active gang membership holding that evidence of gang membership was admissible because the testimony also reflected harriss motive for possessing these particular firearms holding gang membership admissible because it did not substitute for evidence of actual participation in the drug distribution conspiracy