Was the district court required by JHuddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681 (1988) and Rule 404(b) to cure the reversible trial error that resulted from its admission against petitioner of highly prejudicial extrinsic evidence of 15 uncharged, armed street robberies once it had concluded that the Government had failed to prove that the robberies were 'inextricably linked' to the charged RICO conspiracy?

QUESTION PRESENTED Was the district court required by JHuddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681 (1988) and Rule 404(b) to cure the reversible trial error that resulted from its admission against petitioner of highly prejudicial extrinsic evidence of 15 uncharged, armed street robberies once it had concluded that the Government had failed to prove that the robberies were “inextricably linked” to the charged RICO conspiracy? Was the district court required to grant petitioner’s motion for a new trial because its finding that the Government had failed to prove a link between the uncharged crimes and the enterprise was reached only after the jury’s verdict was returned, and no other curative action remained?