to his sentence on the other two counts. As Smith co 756 (5th Cir.2007). 8 . Seale, 600 F.3d at 488 (brackets omitted) (quoting United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 736, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993)). 9 . 384 U.S. 436, 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). 12 . See United States v. Jackson, 339 F.3d 349, 354 (5th Cir.2003). 13 . See United States v. W 37 (5th Cir. 1996) ("[Ejxclusion of extrinsic evidence based on its prejudicial effect should occur only sparingly.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). 23 . See id. ("[Tjhe district court thoroughly instructed the jury concerning the limited use of the extrinsic evidence, thereby minimizing its possible prejudicial effect.”). 24 . See United States v. Duffaut, 314 F.3d 203, 209-10 (5th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). 25 . See - U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 18, 23, 178
holding that failure to give a limiting instruction for 404b evidence is not plain error holding the admission of expert testimony that exceeded the bounds of rule 704 was prejudicial despite the fact that the court gave the jury a limiting instruction similar to the instruction in this case 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 the district court committed plain error by admitting evidence obtained in violation of the fourth amendment where the error did affect a substantial right of the defendants and the admission of evidence which should have been excluded did have a prejudicial impact on the jury holding that in admitting evidence the failure of the trial court to give a limiting instruction sua sponte is not reversible error