the jury as to the limited permissible use of the evidence. 485 U.S. at 691. Here, upon defense counsel’s argument that the evidence would be misused for propensity purposes, the court responded that it would give, a limiting instruction — which it did, both prior to the introduction of the evidence and again during the final instructions — stating that the evidence was to be used only in determining the identity of the person who committed the crimes charged in this case. See United States v. Akouavi Kpade Afolabi, 508 Fed. Appx. 111, 115-116 (3d Cir. 2013) (finding instruction limiting use of prior bad acts evidence to determining the existence of a scheme, plan, intent, or absence of mistake sufficient) (unpublished); United States v. Snard, 497 Fed. Appx. 228, 233 (3d Cir. 2012) (<HOLDING>). It is evident that the rebuttal testimony
holding that admission of rule 404b evidence was proper holding admission of prior conviction under rule 404b appropriate where it was necessary to prove knowledge and a limiting instruction was given holding that a limiting instruction is required where evidence of a prior conviction is admitted over objection 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 that failure to give a limiting instruction for 404b evidence is not plain error