four permissible uses listed in the district court’s instruction were patently irrelevant. Newsom never defended against the gun-possession charge by putting his motive at issue or by saying that he was not the alleged perpetrator (i.e., challenging the issue of identity). Rather, his only defense was that the gun was not his and that he did not know that it was under his seat. Furthermore, Newsom never claimed that he made a mistake. This is not a case, for example, where the defendant thought that he was carrying a toy gun, added). Because the government was required to prove Newsom’s intent to exercise control over the gun in order to prove constructive possession, the issue of his intent was “material” for the purpose of a Rule 404(b) instruction. See Merrkveather, 78 F.3d at 1076 (<HOLDING>). In sum, three of the four permissible uses
holding that when defendants plead not guilty the government is required to prove all elements of charged offenses including intent holding that the government need not prove actual notice to the prisoner holding that the creditor must prove the elements of actual fraud holding that a fact that the statutory elements obligate the government to prove is considered to be material holding that while the government was required to prove that the defendants phone call crossed a state line  the government did not need to prove that the defendant knew of the interstate nexus