was relevant to proving a number of the counts in the indictment. See United States v. Moore, 376 F.3d 570, 574 (6th Cir.2004) (noting that testimony in a bank robbery trial establishing that a defendant met a co-conspirator while in prison was not improper inasmuch as it proved a “prior relationship” that “was relevant in proving that the [co-conspirators] had a common plan”); see also United States v. Harris, 165 F.3d 1062 (6th Cir.1999) (upholding conviction where government witness made passing reference to defendant’s prior arrest). Moreover, the statements regarding Kuehne’s time in prison appear to have gone unexplored by the AUSA and thus were relatively isolated within the context of the overall trial. See United States v. Stotts, 176 F.3d 880, 886-87 (6th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). Second, even if the AUSA’s questioning was
holding that defendant could not claim error in part because he did not request the district court to review the witness reports in question which would allow the district court to review the statements and excise incriminating information holding that district courts dismissal of state law claims was proper where the district court had properly dismissed all of the federal questions that gave it original jurisdiction holding that the district court did not commit plain error in admitting physical evidence of the defendants prior drug arrest in addition to the fact of the arrest itself when the evidence was relevant under rule 404b and the district court gave a limiting instruction holding that a district court properly denied the defendants request for a mistrial following a witness statement that the defendant had  an extensive criminal record  because the remark was isolated and the district court gave an immediate curative instruction holding that the district court acted within its discretion when it denied plaintiffs request for counsel