With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". court proceedings more compelling, we will assume the jury heard evidence of all three felonies for purposes of this appeal. Gaston appeals the admission of the two felonies that he did not discuss on direct examination, asserting that (1) the government did not demonstrate that the probative value of the additional felonies as to Gaston’s credibility outweighed their prejudicial effect and (2) the introduction of all three felonies was cumulative. We review a district court’s decision to admit evidence for abuse of discretion. United States v. Johnson, 388 F.3d 96, 100 (3d Cir.2004). As an initial matter, we note that we agree with the District Court that Ga-ston’s prior drug convictions were probative of his credibility. See United States v. Cordoba, 104 F.3d 225, 229 (9th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Hernandez, 106 F.3d 737, 739

A: holding that a prior conviction for using a communications device to facilitate the distribution of cocaine was admissible under rule 404b to prove that the defendant had the requisite intent to distribute cocaine
B: holding that prior drug trafficking conviction was admissible to prove intent to distribute
C: holding no unfair prejudice from admission of conviction for possession of 50 to 200 pounds of marijuana with intent to distribute as evidence of intent to distribute cocaine
D: holding that a prior conviction for possession with intent to distribute cocaine is admissible under rule 609
D.