With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". especially one charged with sexual éxploitation of a minor ... such evidence may be ‘highly prejudicial’ but not necessarily ‘unfairly prejudicial.’” Id. (quoting United States v. Sebolt, 460 F.3d 910, 917 (7th Cir.2006)). We are unpersuaded by Vonneida’s contention that evidence of his 24-year old conviction was unfairly prejudicial. With respect to its age, “[t]he legislative history of Rule 414 reveals that Congress meant its temporal scope to be broad, allowing the court to admit evidence of Rule 414 acts that occurred more than 20 years before trial.” United States v. Larson, 112 F.3d 600, 605 (2d Cir.1997) (emphasis added) (affirming admission of victim testimony regarding prior acts of molestation that occurred 16 to 20 years prior to trial); see also Davis, 624 F.3d at 511-12 (<HOLDING>). Here, the certifícate of conviction included

A: holding improperly admitted testimony was cumulative to the other properly admitted evidence and was therefore harmless
B: holding redacted 19yearold conviction for sodomy by forcible compulsion was properly admitted in prosecution for sexual exploitation of a minor to prove defendants propensity and proclivity
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 evidence of gang involvement was properly admitted to prove motive for participating in the alleged crimes
B.