context: While we generally review eviden-tiary issues for abuse of discretion, there is an on-going dispute in this circuit concerning the proper standard of review of Rule 404(b) evidence.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 667 F.3d 689, 703
citation_a.parenthetical: noting the "longstanding intra-circuit conflict regarding the appropriate standard of review for evidentiary decisions under Rule 404(b
citation_a.sentence: See United States v. Clay, 667 F.3d 689, 703 (6th Cir.2012) (Kethledge, J., dissenting) (noting the “longstanding intra-circuit conflict regarding the appropriate standard of review for evidentiary decisions under Rule 404(b)”); see also United States v. Chalmers, 554 Fed.Appx. 440, 449 (6th Cir.2014) (noting the “disagreement in this circuit as to the standard of review for evidentiary questions under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b)”).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 554 Fed.Appx. 440, 449
citation_b.parenthetical: noting the "disagreement in this circuit as to the standard of review for evidentiary questions under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b
citation_b.sentence: See United States v. Clay, 667 F.3d 689, 703 (6th Cir.2012) (Kethledge, J., dissenting) (noting the “longstanding intra-circuit conflict regarding the appropriate standard of review for evidentiary decisions under Rule 404(b)”); see also United States v. Chalmers, 554 Fed.Appx. 440, 449 (6th Cir.2014) (noting the “disagreement in this circuit as to the standard of review for evidentiary questions under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b)”).