With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". or different drug in a later distribution trial. See United States v. Givan, 320 F.3d 452, 461 (3d Cir.2003) (“The evidence that Givan had been convicted of distribution of cocaine makes Givaris knowledge of the presence of the heroin more probable than it would have been without the evidence.”). We have also held that a defendant’s “participation in a prior drug conspiracy is probative of his knowledge of, and relationship with a member of,“a later drug conspiracy.” United States v. Vega, 285 F.3d 256, 263 (3d Cir.2002). And we have held that evidence of past distribution is relevant to prove intent to distribute in a later distribution trial, even to the extent of admitting prior convictions as well as uncharged conduct. See United States v. Lee, 573 F.3d 155, 166-67 (3d Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, we have held that the Government

A: holding prior arrest in connection with an undercover drug buy admissible to show intent to distribute narcotics
B: holding prior drug deals admissible to prove knowledge of the drug trade
C: holding that evidence of a 10yearold drug conviction was properly admitted to show intent in a prosecution for possession with intent to distribute
D: holding that prior drug trafficking conviction was admissible to prove intent to distribute
D.