With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". court committed plain error in concluding that this calculus tips in favor of admissibility. As in Calderon, where we held that the Rule 403 calculus favored admissibility, in this case the other crimes evidence admitted by the district court “bore sufficient similarity to uphold the district [court’s] relevance determination.” As explained supra, both Nelson’s prior offenses and the instant offense involved the knowing possession of a weapon in an automobile. Moreover, the time span between Nelson’s prior convictions and the present offense does not render those convictions “too remote for proper consideration.” 127 F.3d at 1332. Specifically, Nelson’s convictions came 2 and 3 years prior to the instant offense, which is well within the temporal bounds of relevance. See generally id. (<HOLDING>). In addition, in this case the district court

A: holding that collateral crime that occurred twelve years prior to charged offense not too remote in time
B: holding that a six year span between the prior offense and the charged conduct did not render the previous conviction too remote to be relevant to the defendants intent in the case then at bar
C: holding that eight years between prior convictions and the beginning of the charged conspiracy was not too remote
D: holding extraneous acts relevant to show intent in charged offense
B.