Whether the Fifth Circuit's per se rule that extrinsic evidence of acts similar to the charged offense is automatically relevant to 'intent' and thus admissible under Rule 404(b) whenever a defendant pleads not guilty to a conspiracy charge conflicts with the text of Rule 404(b) and this Court's precedent

QUESTION PRESENTED Each Court of Appeals has instituted its own multi-pronged test for determining the admissibility of extrinsic evidence under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b), creating deeply entrenched circuit conflict over the proper application of that ubiquitous evidentiary rule. The Fifth Circuit and others hold that extrinsic evidence of acts similar to the charged offense is automatically relevant to “intent” and thus admissible under Rule 404(b) any time a defendant pleads not guilty to a conspiracy charge. Other circuits disagree. The question presented is: Does the Fifth Circuit’s per se rule conflict with the text of Rule 404(b), as well as this Court’s precedent? ii