crime, or is necessary to complete the story of the crime for the jury. And evidence is inextricably intertwined with the evidence regarding the charged offense if it forms an integral and natural part of the witness’s accounts of the circumstances surrounding the offenses for which the defendant was indicted. Nonetheless, evidence of criminal activity other than the charged offense, whether inside or outside the scope of Rule 404(b), must still satisfy the requirements of Rule 403. United States v. Edouard, 485 F.3d 1324, 1344 (11th Cir.2007) (citations, quotation marks, and emphasis omitted) (second alteration in original). “Mere corroboration of testimony ... fails to justify the introduction of unrelated bad acts.” United States v. Lehder-Rivas, 955 F.2d 1510, 1518 (11th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). In this case, there is evidence of a
holding trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting highly probative and relevant evidence of other crimes holding that the issue was more appropriately framed as whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the evidence at trial holding district court abused its discretion in admitting state court findings of fact holding that bjecause lehders method of labeling his cocaine packages was not critical to the prosecutions establishment of a conspiracy the district court abused its discretion by admitting this highly prej udicial evidence holding that a district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the testimony of a witness that was not highly probative