How has the court interpreted Rule 403(b) of the prohibition of "other acts" within Rule 404(b"?

The record indicates that the events of March 22 were not "other acts" within the prohibition of Rule 404(b). Rather, the events of March 22 were part of one series of events set in motion by the informants, the police, and defendant, which resulted in both of the transactions on March 22 and March 23. They were "inextricably intertwined with, and part of the same transaction." United States v. Mundi, 892 F.2d 817, 820 (9th Cir.1989).

Even if the events of March 22 were "other acts" within the prohibition Rule 404(b), they were admissible under the four-part admissibility test of that rule. United States v. Spillone, 879 F.2d 514, 518-19 (9th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 111 S.Ct. 210 (1990). United States v. Scott, 767 F.2d 1308, 1310-11 (9th Cir.1985). The evidence was admissible at least on defendant's state of mind and identity. And the district court properly limited the use of the evidence in the instructions to the jury. The district court's decision not to exclude the evidence under Rule 403 was a proper exercise of its discretion. Spillone, 879 F.2d at 518.