erning whether an error is harmless include "the importance of the witness’ testimony in the prosecution’s ■ case, whether the testimony was cumulative, the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the testimony of the witness on mate rial points, the extent of cross-examination otherwise permitted, and, of course, the overall strength of the prosecution’s case”). 78 . Fed.R.Evid. 406. 79 . Jones v. S. Pac. R.R., 962 F.2d 447, 449 (5th Cir.1992) (quoting Reyes v. Mo. Pac. R.R. Co., 589 F.2d 791, 794 (5th Cir.1979)). 80 . Leonard v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 499 F.3d 419, 442 (5th Cir.2007) (quoting Reyes, 589 F.2d at 794) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Mobil Exploration and Prod. U.S., Inc. v. Cajun Constr. Servs., Inc., 45 F.3d 96, 99 (5th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). 81 . Reyes, 589 F.2d at 795 (quoting
holding that with respect to a businesss routine practice the plaintiff must show regularity over substantially all occasions or with substantially all other parties with whom the defendant has had similar business transactions holding a substantially similar probation condition overbroad recognizing a similar exception to its rule with respect to corporations holding that an insured has substantially complied with the change of beneficiary provisions of a life insurance policy when he has done all that he could to comply with the provisions holding that a contractor who had substantially complied with the building specifications substantially performed