agent retained by Southwest in 1986, who testified that between the end of 1986 and March 1989 Southwest submitted bids to schools in South Dakota and Minnesota that were accompanied by fraudulent bid bonds supposedly written by Balboa containing fraudulent documents and signatures. The defendants argue on appeal that the district court erred in allowing the government to present Rule 404(b) evidence in rebuttal and that the Rule 404(b) evidence was inadmissible under any circumstance. The government argues that the Rule 404(b) evidence should have been admitted during its case-in-ehief and that the district court’s decision to instead admit the evidence during the government’s rebuttal does not constitute prejudicial error. Rule 404(b) evidence “is adm 469, 479-80 (10th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Smith Grading & Paving,
holding that rule 404b evidence is admissible in rebuttal holding that admission of rule 404b evidence was proper holding that a new trial was the remedy for erroneous admission of rule 404b evidence holding that the admission of rule 404b evidence is proper in a drug case where nine years elapse between the prior conduct and the conduct charged holding that proponent of 404b evidence must identify a proper 404b purpose for admission  that is at issue in  the case