With respect to defendant's arguments regarding Rules of Evidence 403 and 608(b), "[i]n the context of an appeal based on a district court's evidentiary rulings, 'such decisions will be reversed for an abuse of discretion only if such nonconstitutional error more likely than not affected the verdict.'" United States v. Bondaruk, No. 2:11-CR-00450-TLN, 2019 WL 266451, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 18, 2019) (internal alteration and citation omitted). As the Court previously determined in denying defendant's motion for a new trial, even if the Court "had permitted unfettered cross-examination of Wadwha regarding his involvement in the alleged murder-for-hire plot, other co-defendants . . . testified as cooperating witnesses against defendant, and their testimony provided substantial evidence regarding defendant's involvement in the crimes charged."