The government sought to admit evidence under Rule 404(b) regarding additional bribes that Defendant had solicited from other contractors to show that Defendant possessed the requisite knowledge and intent to commit the offenses charged in the indictment. Despite the lower court’s failure to provide a detailed analysis under Rule 404(b), the Third Circuit conducted its own Rule 404(b) analysis to rule that the proffered evidence was admissible. Specifically, the court ruled that the evidence was relevant to show that Defendant knew that the items he received were not unilateral token gifts but were given in order to influence his official acts as JRA’s executive director. As these other solicitations occurred within a discrete time frame with some of the same actors involved in the charged conduct, these uncharged solicitations evinced a course of conduct which tended to show Defendant’s intent to accept bribes in exchange for city contract work. The Third Circuit also ruled that the limiting instruction provided by the trial court tempered the prejudicial impact of the proffered evidence, as well as the fact that the evidence consisted of uncharged conduct as opposed to a conviction.