With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". proof of trafficking or possession with intent to traffic only by a preponderance of the evidence. See United States v. Johnson, Nos. 97-CR-206, 98-CR-160, 1999 WL 395381, *11 n. 3 (N.D.N.Y.1999), affd, 221 F.3d at 98; see also U.S.S.G. § 6A1.3 cmt. background. Jordan further contends that because he admitted only to knowing possession of the images in question, the district court erred in considering evidence that he had trafficked in other child pornography before his arrest. This argument lacks merit. Jordan’s past behavior and his admission that he previously trafficked in other child pornography were relevant to the intent with which he possessed the images that were the subject of the indictment. Cf. United States v. Von Foelkel, 136 F.3d 339, 341 (2d Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). The district court did not clearly err in

A: holding prior bad acts evidence is admissible where there is an articulation or identification of the consequential fact to which the proffered evidence of other acts is directed
B: holding that a prior conviction may be a bad act for purposes of rule 404b if substantial evidence supports a finding that defendant committed both acts and the probative value is not limited solely to tending to establish the defendants propensity to commit a crime such as the crime charged
C: holding on a criminal appeal that prior bad acts evidence is admissible to prove intent to commit the charged crime
D: holding that a notguilty plea places defendants intent at issue and evidence of similar prior crimes can thus be relevant to prove intent to commit charged crime
C.