With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". should not have been presented to the jury because it was extremely prejudicial and irrelevant. Id. at 317-18. The prejudicial nature of the evidence in this case, where there is merely the possibility that the appellants or their associates were involved in another crime, is far less than in Murray, which involved evidence that the defendant had actually committed another murder. Moreover, unlike the evidence in Murray, the evidence in this case was relevant and was offered for a proper evidentiary purpose. Finally, the District Court’s failure to give a limiting instruction addressing this evidence was not reversible error because there is no indication in the record that defense counsel requested one. See Ansell v. Green Acres Contracting Co., Inc., 347 F.3d 515, 526 (3d Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Multi-Mgmt., Inc., 743 F.2d

A: holding that the defendant had waived any challenge to the district courts failure to give a limiting instruction addressing rule 404b evidence by failing to request one at trial or raise the issue on appeal
B: holding that failure to give a limiting instruction for 404b evidence is not plain error
C: holding that district courts incomplete 404b limiting instruction did not warrant reversal because district court told defense counsel what limiting instruction it would give and defense counsel did not object or request a more specific instruction
D: holding that a challenge to the weight of the evidence is waived for failure to present the issue first to the trial court
A.