under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R.App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 1 . Comelio-Legarda’s counsel also mentioned the conviction during his closing argument, stating: "Now, I entered into a stipulation that Mr. Cornelio-Legarda has been previously convicted of a felony. I didn't have to do it. Nothing made me sign that piece of paper. I did it because I'm not trying to hide that fact. It's part of his life. It's part of his past. I can’t fix it. He can’t fix it.” 2 . Cornelio-Legarda did not request a limiting instruction, none was given, and he makes no appellate argument that this was plain error. United States v. Valentine, 706 F.2d 282, 290 n. 7 (10th Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>). 3 . In his reply brief, Cornelio-Legarda
holding that a limiting instruction is required where evidence of a prior conviction is admitted over objection 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 a prior inconsistent statement was admissible and the defendant failed to ask for a limiting instruction that the jury could not use the statement as substantive evidence recognizing that upon request the trial court may provide a limiting instruction to the jury holding that a limiting instruction safeguards the accused from the possibility that the jury might view a prior conviction as evidence of predisposition to commit the crimes charged