Robles

*919 MEMORANDUM ***

Jesse Albert Robles appeals his jury trial conviction for assault with a dangerous weapon and assault resulting in serious bodily injury in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 113 (a)(3), (6), and 1153. He argues that the district court abused its discretion under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) when it allowed the introduction of evidence that Samuel Ludlow, the man whom Robles assaulted, had, roughly eight years before, reported Robles to the police for vehicle theft. We affirm.

Rule 404(b) states that “[e]vidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts [while] not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith^] ... [is] admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.” Fed.R.Evid. 404(b). As we have often stated, for evidence to be admissible under Rule 404(b):

United States v. Curtin, — F.3d -, 2006 WL 851755, *5 (9th Cir.2006) (alterations in original) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also United States v. Hadley, 918 F.2d 848, 850-51 (9th Cir.1990) (same). When evidence is admitted to prove motive…