requested by a defendant constitutes reversible error only if the instruction: ‘(1) was correct; (2) was not substantially covered by the court’s charge to the jury; and (3) dealt with some point in the trial so important, that failure to give the requested instruction seriously impaired the defendant’s ability to conduct his defense.’ ”. United States v. Lewis, 53 F.3d 29, 32 (4th Cir.1995), quoting United States v. Camejo, 929 F.2d 610, 614 (11th Cir.1991) (internal quotations omitted). Because we find that the instruction did not seriously impair Queen’s ability to defend himself, we need not address whether the instructions satisfied the first two elements of the test articulated in Lewis. Queen’s request for a limitation on the evidence of Hester’s earlier ac Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Bengali, 11 F.3d 1207, 1213
holding prior drug deals admissible to prove knowledge of the drug trade holding evidence of prior drug use admissible to show motive and the nature of the defendants relationship with coconspirators holding trial court improperly instructed jury in trial for possession of cocaine base with intent to distribute that evidence of defendants similar acts of possession was admissible to show motive where motive was not element of crime charged and defendant did not contest motive holding other crimes evidence admissible to show motive where motive was put in issue by defense at trial holding evidence of defendants prior drug use and heroin addiction admissible to establish defendants motive to commit robbery