With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". — and that he once agreed to store some cocaine. Because Landrau was charged with conspiracy to knowingly possess cocaine with the intent to distribute it, and because he defended by claiming ignorance of the cocaine, Landrau’s reading of the Rule 404(b) exceptions is too restrictive. See United, States v. Flores Perez, 849 F.2d 1, 4 (1st Cir.1988) (“[W]here ... the other bad act evidence is introduced to show knowledge, motive, or intent, the Rule 404(b) exceptions to the prohibition against character evidence have been construed broadly.”). The other bad act need not be identical to the crime charged so long as it is sufficiently similar to allow a juror to draw a reasonable inference probative of knowledge or intent. See United States v. Spinosa, 982 F.2d 620, 628 (1st Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Nickens, 955 F.2d 112,

A: holding that where defendant was charged with drug conspiracy it was unnecessary for the government to prove defendants presence at the sales and hence the alibi defense was not supported by the law and no instruction was required
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 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: holding a fiveyear old drug conviction is probative of a defendants state of mind in a drug conspiracy case
B.