admits this position might be in “tension” with United States v. McVeigh, 153 F.3d 1166 (10th Cir.1998), cert. denied, — U.S.—, 119 S.Ct. 1148, 143 L.Ed.2d 215 (1999), which states that “[t]his Circuit has required on-the-record findings for a trial court’s balancing under Rule 403 when the disputed evidence is offered pursuant to one of the specialized character evidence rules,” including Rule 404(b) evidence. Id. at 1189 n. 10. We have consistently upheld implicit Rule 403 determinations when the determinations are supported by the record. See, e.g., United States v. Wilson, 107 F.3d 774, 783 (10th Cir.1997) (concluding the district court implicitly made a Rule 403 finding when it ruled at trial and at a motion in limine hearing to admit 404(b) evidence); Mills, 29 F.3d at 549 (<HOLDING>); accord United States v. Easter, 981 F.2d
holding the district court implicitly made a rule 403 determination when the defendant argued prejudice would outweigh the 404b evidences utility holding that rule 404b evidence is admissible in rebuttal holding that the district court did not commit plain error in admitting physical evidence of the defendants prior drug arrest in addition to the fact of the arrest itself when the evidence was relevant under rule 404b and the district court gave a limiting instruction holding that when defendant argued on appeal that the trial justice should have given the jury a sua sponte limiting instruction regarding alleged rule 404b evidence defendants failure to object at trial constituted a waiver of that issue holding that admission of rule 404b evidence was proper