How are the courts to properly apply Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)? Should they apply the Third Circuit's more substantive approach which requires a close connection between the 404(b) purpose and the material issues in the case, as explained in United States v. Caldwell, 760 F.3d 267 (3d Cir. 2014)? Alternatively, should the courts apply the Eleventh Circuit's more theoretical approach which requires a lower connection between the 404(b) purpose and the material issues in the case, and allows explicit propensity purposes to be presented or dominate at trial, as demonstrated in Petitioner's case?

Whether Kisor v. Wilkie, 139 S.Ct. 2400 (2019) precludes deference to guideline commentary that expands the fraud guideline text in U.S.S.G. §2B1.1?

How are the courts to properly apply Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)?