The following excerpt is from U.S. v. Mays, 131 F.3d 149 (9th Cir. 1997):
Under the four-part test used to analyze evidence admitted pursuant to this rule, United States v. Houser, 929 F.2d 1369, 1373 (9th Cir.1991), the district court did not err in finding that there was sufficient evidence presented to show that Mays committed these prior acts. The acts were not too remote, allegedly occurring up to the point at which the methamphetamine was found in the truck, and they were similar acts to the one act of manufacture which produced the methamphetamine found in the truck.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.