because it was not used to show that Chenault acted in conformity with a bad character. Chenault testified that he had produced more than the 6000 pallets he had on hand, but that they had been stolen and vandalized. Chenault intended this evidence to support his primary defense that even though the documents may have been false, he nevertheless had no culpable intent because he intended to and did use the money to build the pallets, which were then lost through theft and vandalism. The evidence about the disposition of the pallets, of course, directly implicates that attempted defense. It shows that rather than having the benign intent to complete the contract for the government, he intended to defraud the government. See United States v. Ackal, 706 F.2d 528, 531 (5th Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>). Rule 404(b) expressly allows the admission of
holding on a criminal appeal that prior bad acts evidence is admissible to prove intent to commit the charged crime holding that when defendant claimed he was involved in a legitimate business deal evidence of a separate act of extortion was admissible to prove intent to commit fraud holding that there was no prejudice when evidence complained of would have been admissible against defendant in separate trial holding that extrinsic offense evidence was admissible to prove intent where the prosecutor stated that she anticipated the defendant would deny his intent to be involved in the charged offense and defense counsel did not even mention that he would refrain from contesting the intent issue holding that prior battery was admissible to prove defendants intent to injure