485 U.S. 681 (1988)
Guy Rufus Huddleston was charged with one count of selling stolen goods in interstate commerce under 18 U.S.C. § 2315 and one count of possessing stolen property in interstate commerce under 18 U.S.C. § 659.1 The two counts related to two portions of a shipment of stolen Memorex videocassette tapes that Huddleston was alleged to have possessed and sold.2
A trailer containing over 32,000 blank Memorex videocassette tapes with a manufacturing cost of $4.53 per tape was stolen from the Overnight Express yard in South Holland, Illinois, sometime between April 11 and 15, 1985.3 On April 17, 1985, Huddleston contacted Karen Curry, the manager of the Magic Rent-to-Own in Ypsilanti, Michigan, seeking her assistance in selling a large number of blank Memorex videocassette tapes.4 After assuring Curry that the tapes were not stolen, he told her he wished to sell them in lots of at least 500 at $2.75 to $3 per tape, and Curry subsequently arranged for the sale of a total of 5,000 tapes which Huddleston delivered to the purchasers, who apparently believed the sales were legitimate.5
The government introduced evidence of similar acts.6 Paul Toney, a record store owner, testified that in February 1985 Huddleston offered to sell new 12-inch black and white televisions for $28 apiece, indicated he could obtain several thousand of them, and ultimately sold Toney a total of 38 televisions at the Magic Rent-to-Own.7 Undercover FBI agent Robert Nelson testified that in May 1985 Huddleston offered to sell him 28 refrigerators, 2 ranges, and 40 icemakers for $8,000; Huddleston was arrested shortly after arriving at the parking lot to transfer the appliances, which were determined to have a value of approximately $20,000 and to be part of a stolen shipment.8
Huddleston testified that the Memorex tapes, the televisions, and the appliances had all been provided by Leroy Wesby, who had represented that all of the merchandise was obtained legitimately, and that he had sold 6,500 Memorex tapes for Wesby on a commission basis without knowledge that any of the goods were stolen.9 The jury convicted Huddleston on the possession count only.10 A divided panel of the Sixth Circuit initially reversed the conviction but on rehearing affirmed it, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the Courts of Appeals.1112
Whether the district court must itself make a preliminary finding that the Government has proved the other act by a preponderance of the evidence before it submits the evidence to the jury?13
Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) permits evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts for purposes such as proof of knowledge, subject to the general rules of admissibility under Rules 402 and 403.14 Such evidence is admissible if there is sufficient evidence to support a finding by the jury that the defendant committed the similar act under Rule 104(b).15 No preliminary finding by the court under Rule 104(a) by a preponderance of the evidence is required.16
No. The district court need not make a preliminary finding that the Government proved the other act by a preponderance of the evidence before submitting the evidence to the jury.17 The threshold inquiry is whether the evidence is probative of a material issue other than character, and here the Government's theory was that the televisions were stolen to show Huddleston's knowledge regarding the Memorex tapes.18 Under Rule 104(b), the court examines whether the jury could reasonably find the conditional fact by a preponderance, considering all evidence including the low price of the televisions, the large quantity, Huddleston's inability to produce a bill of sale, and his involvement with the stolen Memorex tapes and Amana appliances from Wesby.19 The evidence met this standard, allowing admission.20
The district court did not err in admitting the similar acts evidence without making a preliminary finding by a preponderance of the evidence.21