If another crime or wrong is offered under the second sentence of Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) to show the identity of an actor, wrongdoer, or defendant (e.g., to show that a criminal defendant rather than someone else committed the crime for which defendant is on trial), the other crime or wrong and the act, wrong, or crime at issue at trial must have been committed in a distinctive as well as similar fashion.

United States v. Dornhofer, 859 F.2d 1195, 1199 (4th Cir. 1988) (upholding trial court's admission into evidence of magazines, books, and a notebook containing pictures of nude children because such evidence showed accused's intent or "predisposition toward child pornography" and his "lack of mistake when...Evidence of a criminal or wrongful act apart from the act that at issue at trial Is not barred by the prohibition against circumstantial use of character if intent, knowledge, mistake, or accident is a legally-material factual issue, the opposing party suggests the non-existence of knowledge or urges mistake or accident as a defense, and evidence of another crime, wrong, or act is offered to prove the knowledge or the absence of mistake or accident by a criminal defendant or other person.

Boerner v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co., 394 F.3d 594, 600-601 (8th Cir. 2005) (holding, in plaintiff widower's action against defendant cigarette manufacturer for wrongful death, that the trial court properly admitted into evidence four....An exception to the hearsay rule applies to the following records of government offices and agencies: (A) public records that set forth the activities of the government office or agency; (B) public records that set forth observations that a government office or agency was required to make and report but this exception does not apply in criminal cases to observations of police officers and other law enforcement personnel; or (C) in civil actions and proceedings and in criminal cases when offered against the government, factual findings resulting from an investigation made pursuant to authority granted by law, unless the sources of information or other circumstances indicate the untrustworthiness of such findings.

United States v. McHorse, 179 F.3d 889, 902 (10th Cir. 1999) (upholding the trial court's ruling which allowed the prosecutor's inquiry on cross-examination of accused and his son on specific incidents involving his daughter and half-sister because their testimony of accused's character or pertinent trait...Although a character witness who testifies to the reputation of another person or gives an opinion of the character of another person cannot testify to specific instances of that person's conduct to bolster the character witness's testimony, an opposing party may question the character witness about specific instances of the person's conduct to show that the character witness' testimony about the character of the person was not well-founded.