With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". could “concede” the intent of the driver, and thus prevent the Government from introducing evidence proving this point, we note the evidence may have been properly admitted under 404(b) on the basis of intent as well. 8 . The Guidelines range was 120 to 150 months. EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judge, dissenting: I dissent from the majority opinion’s holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting Joshua’s directly or through appropriate inferences, causally related to some other issue in the case. Wright, supra, § 5240. Where there is no evidence linking the charged crime to the uncharged crime the latter proves the former only by inference to the defendant’s character and is thus irrelevant to motive. United States v. Brown, 880 F.2d 1012, 1014-15 (9th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). Here, the prior drug possession does not

A: holding evidence of defendants prior drug use and heroin addiction admissible to establish defendants motive to commit robbery
B: holding where court could not see how defendants prior assaults established motive to commit charged murder admission of prior assaults was abuse of discretion
C: holding that prior instance and information regarding sexual assaults at fraternity house demonstrated reasonable foreseeability of a sexual assault
D: holding evidence that county employees engaged in unconstitutional assaults on two occasions insufficient to support finding such assaults were pursuant to county policy
B.