its bearing on any matter to which it is relevant, including the defendant’s propensity to commit such offenses.” (internal quotations marks omitted)). But Rule 414’s text does not simply allow admission of prior acts of child molestation. Rather, Rule 414’s text says that "the court may admit evidence that the defendant committed any other child molestation" without referring to when that child molestation occurred. Fed.R.Evid. 414(a). Evidence of pri- or and subsequent acts of child molestation equally demonstrates a defendant’s propensities. Thus, it does not matter whether Lohse produced the nine photographs before or after he received or possessed the child pornography in his basement; Rule 414 covers both scenarios. See United States v. Sioux, 362 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Beechum, 582 F.2d 898, 903
holding that any error in the exclusion of evidence is cured by the subsequent admission of the evidence holding that a prior conviction may be a bad act for purposes of rule 404b if substantial evidence supports a finding that defendant committed both acts and the probative value is not limited solely to tending to establish the defendants propensity to commit a crime such as the crime charged holding that the parol evidence rule did not bar introduction of evidence of a subsequent oral contract concerning the brokers right to a commission and modifying the written agreement holding admission of prior bad acts of child abuse was reversible error when the defendant did not have exclusive control over the children during the period when the prior bad acts occurred holding that the existing exceptions to rule 404bs general bar against the admission of propensity evidence allow for the introduction of both prior and subsequent bad acts evidence