outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice or confusion, as required under Fed. R.Evid. 403 to establish inadmissibility. It certainly is true, as the Court notes, that Davis’s residency in or control over the house was a key issue at trial. However, the district court immediately gave the limiting instruction that the face sheet was to be “received for the limited purposes of demonstrating the reason and lawfulness of the search in question and for no other reason than that.” Because the district court gave an appropriate limiting instruction, I believe that the additional probable cause finding set forth in the face sheet of the search warrant should not have a significant effect on the Rule 403 balancing test. See United States v. Karam, 37 F.3d 1280, 1286 (8th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). The Court notes that in applying the Rule 403
holding that district court is not required to word jury instructions in any particular way so long as it correctly states the law recognizing that upon request the trial court may provide a limiting instruction to the jury holding that the decision of the appellate court establishes the law of the case and it must be followed by the trial court on remand holding that this court is required to assume that the jury followed the limiting instructions given by the district court recognizing that use of curative or limiting instructions is within the district courts discretion