With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". “two to three times every single week,” every week for one year. Thus, appellant purchased, and personally possessed upon its receipt, at least a quarter of a kilogram of crack each week, which amounts to at least 13 kilograms of crack for the year. It is well settled that the possession of drugs in a quantity “greater than the supply ordinarily possessed by a narcotics user for his personal use, is a circumstance which, standing alone, may be sufficient to support a finding of intent to distribute.” Hunter v. Commonwealth, 213 Va. 569, 570, 193 S.E.2d 779, 780 (1973). Appellant’s possession of 13 kilograms of crack over the course of a year is certainly sufficient to infer he intended to distribute it. See, e.g., Gregory v. Commonwealth, 22 Va.App. 100, 110, 468 S.E.2d 117, 122 (1996) (<HOLDING>). In addition, when viewed in the light most

A: holding the large quantity of drugs sufficient evidence of intent to distribute
B: holding that the defendants prior distribution of crack was admissible to prove that he had intent and knowledge regarding crack found in a gym bag
C: holding that evidence that the accused possessed 37 grams of crack was sufficient to prove he had the intent to distribute it
D: holding two prior convictions for distribution of crack relevant to show intent to distribute the crack found in defendants possession
C.