McKenzie

MEMORANDUM **

1. The district court did not abuse its discretion by permitting witness Hicks to testify that McKenzie engaged in fraudulent accounting practices in her previous business The testimony was admissible pursuant to Fed.R.Evid. 404(b) as probative of McKenzie’s intent to defraud, absence of mistake and method of operation. The testimony also satisfied our requirements of “(1) be[ing] based on sufficient evidence; (2) be[ing] not too remote in time from charged crimes; (3) bearfing] some similarity to charged acts; and (4) proving] an essential element of the charged offense.” United States v. Melvin, 91 F.3d 1218, 1222 (9th Cir.1996). Hicks’s testimony that she witnessed McKenzie’s prior bad acts was sufficient proof. See United States v. Johnson, 132 F.3d 1279, 1283 (9th Cir.1997) (“Th[e] reliability threshold is not a high one, and the testimony of a single witness can be sufficient.”); United States v. Hinton, 31 F.3d 817, 823 (9th Cir.1994). Nor were the acts too remote in time, having occurred between 1990 and 1993.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in holding that the prejudicial effeet of Hicks’s testimony did not outweigh its probative value. See…