With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". robbery due to their association with Gist, we agree with the District Court that the probative value of the disputed evidence was not “substantially outweighed by the danger of ... unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.” Fed.R.Evid. 403. The evidence did not speak to the appellants’ character because there was no proof that the appellants had committed the post office robbery. Proof that they were being investigated alone is substantially less prejudicial than evidence of the commission of a crime. The possible prejudicial effect of the post office robbery evidence, therefore, did not substantially outweigh its probative value. See United States v. Jones, 566 F.3d 353, 365 (3d Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>). The appellants claim that the disputed

A: holding trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting highly probative and relevant evidence of other crimes
B: holding that evidence of prior drug sales was sufficiently similar to the crimes charged  to be probative of the fact that the defendant was not merely an innocent driver who was involved in the drug transaction by accident
C: holding that evidence of gang involvement was properly admitted to prove motive for participating in the alleged crimes
D: holding that evidence of violent crimes and other illegal activities of defendants gang was not unduly prejudicial because defendant was not directly implicated and the evidence was probative of elements of the crimes that the defendant was charged with
D.