Mr. Acebo was tried for First Degree Murder (and other offenses) in connection with the shooting death of Derek Pappan. He asserted the defense of self-defense. At his jury trial, Mr. Acebo took the stand in his own defense and sought—in support of his defense of self-defense—to testify as to specific incidents in his past with Mr. Pappan that led him to fear the victim, including threats and acts of violence against Mr. Acebo and his family. The Government, which had actual notice of all that Mr. Acebo sought to testify to, sought and obtained exclusion of this testimony by Mr. Acebo, arguing that he was required to give notice of his intent to introduce this "reverse 404(b)" evidence by the District Court's scheduling order.

Under these facts, was the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision in conflict with decisions of this Court (and other Courts of Appeals) by concluding that a District Court's scheduling order (or any other local rule or practice for that matter) can effectively amend the notice requirement contained within Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) expanding it to apply to a criminal defendant, when the Rule's drafters expressly required such notice only from "the prosecutor"?

Whether a District Court's scheduling order or local rule can effectively amend Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) to expand the notice requirement to apply to criminal defendants when the Rule's drafters expressly required such notice only from prosecutors