With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". showed that he traveled to California to purchase a large quantity of drugs, an activity which is substantially similar in kind to the conduct the government alleged he committed in the current conspiracy. See United States v. Shoffner, 71 F.3d 1429, 1432 (8th Cir.1995) (finding evidence indicating previous involvement in large-scale distribution activities sufficiently similar to present charge of involvement in large-scale distribution activities). The government charged the onset date of the conspiracy here as sometime around January 1995, thus only five years (over four and a half of which he spent in prison) separated Frazier, Sr.’s alleged current criminal conduct and his past conduct, rendering the past conduct well within the bounds of admission. See Hardy, 224 F.3d at 757 (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Green, 151 F.3d

A: holding that admission of rule 404b evidence was proper
B: holding that collateral crime that occurred twelve years prior to charged offense not too remote in time
C: recognizing that sixyearold conviction is not too remote for introduction under rule 404b
D: holding that proponent of 404b evidence must identify a proper 404b purpose for admission  that is at issue in  the case
C.