A course of conduct can constitute habit for purposes of Federal Rule of Evidence 406 and state counterparts to Rule 406 only if the conduct is highly regular or practically invariable.

United States v. Williams, 737 F.2d 594, 608 (7th Cir. 1984) (upholding trial court's admission of Webbe's grand-jury testimonies as prior inconsistent statements because "Webbe's trial and grand-jury testimonies....A positive or direct contradiction between the testimony at the trial or proceeding and a prior statement is not required to make the prior statement "inconsistent" for purposes of the hearsay exemption created by Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(A) or by a comparable State rule. It is sufficient if there is a disparity between the two statements such that a reasonable person might question the credibility of the person who made them.

Fed. R. Evid. 413(b) ("In a case in which the Government intends to offer evidence under this rule, the attorney for the Government shall disclose the evidence to the defendant, including statements of witnesses or a summary of the substance of any testimony that is expected to be offered, at least fifteen days before the scheduled date of...In a case in which the prosecutor intends to offer evidence of similar sexual assaults under Federal Rule of Evidence 413, the prosecutor must disclose the evidence of such assaults to the defendant, including statements of witnesses or a summary of the substance of any testimony that is expected to be offered, at least fifteen days before the scheduled date of trial unless the trial court for good cause allows disclosure at a later time.

United States v. Steele, 550 F.3d 693, 700 (8th Cir. 2008) (upholding trial court's admission of evidence of prior conviction and resisting arrest because such evidence of prior similar acts was relevant to issues other than accused's character).A person's propensity, or character, is not barred by the character rule if it is offered for any purpose other than to show a person's conduct on a particular occasion.