With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". err in admitting it. Therefore, because none of the witnesses’ testimony was admitted under Rule 404(b), and the testimony was relevant to establish that Chisolm was guilty of the crimes for which he was being tried, the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the testimony. See Brannan, 562 F.3d at 1306. III. Sentencing Enhancement We review Chisolm’s contention that the district court erred in applying a sentencing enhancement, which resulted in his life sentence, de novo. United States v. Mazarky, 499 F.3d 1246, 1248 (11th Cir.2007). In this case, the district court did not err in sentencing Chisolm to an enhanced sente state court convictions do not qualify as predicate offenses fails on the merits. See United States v. Hansley, 54 F.3d 709, 717-18 (11th Cir. 1995) (<HOLDING>) (emphasis in original). AFFIRMED. 1 . Chisolm

A: holding that a second state court conviction for simple possession of narcotics is an aggravated felony as defined in 8 usc  1101a43
B: holding that a prior nonarizona conviction to be used as a prior felony conviction under the statute must both be for an offense that would constitute a felony in arizona and be classified as a felony in the other jurisdiction
C: holding that defendants prior felony convictions in georgia state court for drugrelated conspiracy and simple possession qualified as predicate prior felony drug offenses for  841b1a because under the plain language of the statute  felony drug offense includes any criminal conduct relating to narcotics including simple possession which a state has proscribed as a felony
D: holding lopez was inapplicable to the language prior conviction for a felony drug offense in 21 usc  841b1a because felony drug offense was defined in 21 usc  80244 as an offense that is punishable by imprisonment for more than one year under any law of the united states or of a state
C.