Can prior act evidence be admitted under Rule 404(b)(2) to demonstrate absence of mistake?

admissible under Rule 404(b)(2) to demonstrate, inter alia, absence of mistake. But the district court considered, in limine and after in camera review, the weight of the evidence Simcoe sought to admit at trial and determined that whatever probative value Simcoe argued the evidence carried was not sufficient to justify its admission. Simcoe gives us no clear grounds to question this conclusion and we therefore see no reason here to invade the "broad discretion" given to district courts in determining the admissibility of prior act evidence. Ismail v. Cohen, 899 F.2d 183, 188 (2d Cir. 1990).

Simcoe also challenges the district court's decision not to appoint him pro bono counsel, a decision we review for abuse of discretion. Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58, 60 (2d Cir. 1986). Simcoe's conduct at the trial only bears out the district court's assessment of his ability to effectively prosecute his case. As such, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to appoint counsel. See id. (looking to, among other factors, the plaintiff's "ability to gather and present crucial facts" in support of his case).