Did the appellate court abuse its discretion in finding that the evidence of prior acts was admissible and justified according to FRE 404(b), when the appellate court disregarded and disagreed with the district court's evidentiary ruling?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1 DID The FeLidols upeenle Covet ABuse its BIScRETI OW . . ~ weet the court wep ieded Tike APPELLATE Covlets FOL INQ that ple vsae,e oF wear sad within tHe Petit 10th S ence WAS ADMISSIBLE MnO Gusttifleb AtccCokhb IN@ fo 726 [les (0-15.41, When cleared tHe APP EUATE Court Uiscodteued aNd UisAperied THe El tet LAw. ; 7° Bib THe /€b MEIN OI SUPREME pouet eerok when It Den Reer ‘ . MEE on Pet fionieRs Petitioy Foe Leave To APPEAL 7 CONSIDERING Phe CLOSELY BALANCED EVA Eeg WITHIN the Petiypor/tkS case. PIR THe ILE 01 6 SUPREAe Couey £2 eggeog by ° ABUSE fs pDIicceefion AFEIENA 1b, Tike APPeLLAt ¢ * INO Tat pie wv, £8 e0eR te Oc ANIA ER AePLIeD pee Ve Wowhiet Pie Teint covet © TIP /o ‘ ; mu v4 NERS Post —~ teint KRAN KEL Here iJ & it? F. | Feed Bip not pene Deke ban f pute PROe SS OF LA, nd : Mi DIL Tipe (LU insotc¢ SUPE € eo Rervjep On COURT SRROR Wee If Be lPe . MPP eae TIP once Petitions. fog Leave To CONSIDERA & P ; FaiLuRe yay TIM ES pI Cail eee DS iWlethee banc, CeT VEN eso Cony CLR NING Coun sey 's URS & To Cel eef~ eo 4H-« ABA SS 100/ Of Heng <a EViDtrJ og . PF MetiVe Baten ON cack bf Poona ATtlons.