With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". v. Arambular-Ruiz, 987 F.2d 599, 602 (9th Cir.1993) (evaluating admissibility under Rule 404(b) for materiality, similarity, sufficiency, and proximity of the prior act evidence to the offense now charged). Evidence that sheds light on Dhingra’s purpose in contacting the victim is material, as his intent in communicating with a minor is an essential element of criminal liability under § 2422(b). Further, the testimony of a single witness, as present in this case, satisfies the low-threshold test of sufficient evidence for the purposes of Rule 404(b). See United States v. Hinton, 31 F.3d 817, 823 (9th Cir.1994). Also, the testimony, which recalled events that occurred three years prior, was sufficiently close in time. Cf. United States v. Johnson, 132 F.3d 1279, 1283 (9th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). Significantly, the evidence described

A: holding that a bad faith claim is a tort
B: holding that thirteen business trips of short duration over eighteen months was not continuous and systematic solicitation of business in the state to justify general jurisdiction
C: holding that a local commission had not failed to act on an application within time limit set by state law and consequently had not failed to act within a reasonable time under telecommunications act
D: holding that thirteen years since a prior bad act was not too remote in time
D.