was admissible, “subject to anything that might cause the court to reconsider based on the evidence.” When the Government introduced this evidence during the trial, Komolafe did not object. This court reviews the district court’s evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion. United States v. Aramony, 88 F.3d 1369, 1377 (4th Cir.1996). However, where a party fails to object to the admission of evidence, our review is for plain error. United States v. Chin, 83 F.3d 83, 87 (4th Cir.1996) (citations omitted). We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not err in determining that the evidence provided context and background for the conspiracy and was intrinsic to the charged conspiracy. See Chin, 83 F.3d at 88; United States v. Kennedy, 32 F.3d 876 (4th Cir. 1994) (<HOLDING>). Further, the evidence was not unfairly
holding that an indictment is sufficient as long as it fully and clearly sets out the crime and the elements of the offense even if the evidence consists of proof of other means of committing the same crime holding there was no rule 404b violation where the evidence was admitted to show knowledge and knowledge was an element of the crime charged holding it is fundamental error to convict a defendant of crime not charged and which is not a lesser included offense of the charged crime holding that admission of prior crime similar to the one charged increases likelihood that jury will convict based on past pattern of behavior rather than on facts of charged offense holding that fedrevid 404b does not restrict evidence of crimes that arose out of the same series of transactions as the charged offense or that are necessary to complete the story of the charged crime