immigration documents or elements of the charged offenses; however, uncharged criminal activity need not be identical to the charged crime in order to be admitted under the intricately related doctrine. Gougis, 432 F.3d at 743. Here, the evidence of the sale of contraband cigarettes showed how Wantuch’s relationship with Sienkiewicz “began, its basis and structure, and how the relationship blossomed into the charged conspiracy.” United States v. Zames, 33 F.3d 1454, 1469 (7th Cir.1994). It outlined how the relationship of trust and cooperation between Sienkiewicz and Wantuch was born, developed and eventually led to their respective roles in the conspiracy. See United States v. Spaeni, 60 F.3d 313, 316 (7th Cir.1995); see also United States v. Richmond, 222 F.3d 414, 417 (7th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). Further, the evidence showed that Wan-tuch
holding that once the defendant is before the court the court will not inquire into the circumstances surrounding his presence there holding that to determine whether a statement was voluntary the court must consider the totality of all the surrounding circumstances  both the characteristics of the accused and the details of the interrogation and decide  whether a defendants will was overborne by the circumstances surrounding the giving of a confession holding that evidence was intricately related because it explained the circumstances surrounding the relationships of the people involved in the conspiracy holding that an auditor intricately involved in the creation of misstatements and omissions may be liable under  10b even if the statements could not be reasonably attributable to him holding that the level of force the defendants used against one plaintiff was unreasonable in relation to the threat that she presented and the surrounding circumstances and finding that the law was clearly established