pursuant to Rule 404(b) pursuant to the abuse of discretion standard. See United States v. Miller, 959 F.2d 1535, 1538 (11th Cir.1992) (applying abuse of discretion standard to Rule 404(b) admission of extrinsic offense to prove identity or modus operandi). To determine whether the evidence is more probative than prejudicial, a district court must engage in a “ ‘common sense assessment of all the circumstances surrounding the extrinsic offense,’ including prosecutorial need, overall similarity between the extrinsic act and the charged offense, as well as temporal remoteness.” United States v. Calderon, 127 F.3d 1314, 1332 (11th Cir.1997) (citing United States v. Beechum, 582 F.2d 898, 914-15 (5th Cir.1978)); see also United States v. Pollock, 926 F.2d 1044, 1048 (11th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). Prior convictions for drug trafficking are
holding an agency could not use a policy found in a departments employee manual as the rule of law to determine a contested issue because the agency never adopted a rule containing such a policy recognizing a similar exception to its rule with respect to corporations holding that no brightline rule could be adopted with respect to temporal remoteness because the issue is very factspecific holding to that effect with respect to rule 64 holding that a rule that conflicts with a subsequent adopted statutory amendment may not be enforced