charges. Both this evidence and Stanley’s guilty plea were introduced during trial. Rule 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence states that evidence of other crimes is admissible to show “proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident____” Guidance for applying this rule is provided by the two-part test introduced in United States v. Beechum, 582 F.2d 898 (5th Cir.1978) (en banc), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 920, 99 S.Ct. 1244, 59 L.Ed.2d 472 (1979): (i) Is the extrinsic offense evidence relevant to one of the Rule 404(b) factors?; and (ii) Is the probative value of that evidence greater than its potential to unfairly prejudice the jury? See id. at 911. Stanley contends that failure on the part of pr 1, 285 (5th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). The evidence at issue is 70 marijuana plants
holding that prior conviction shall be admissible evidence for impeachment purposes unless danger of undue prejudice substantially outweighs probative value holding that a district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the testimony of a witness that was not highly probative holding that witness testimony about prior drug purchases from defendant was highly probative of brookins guilt and was not outweighed by any danger of undue prejudice holding that the probative value of contested evidence far outweighed any danger of unfair prejudice where any potential unfair prejudice was cured by a limiting jury instruction holding in a criminal context that the probative value of evidence of other crimes is not substantially outweighed by danger of unfair prejudice where the court will give a limiting jury charge