With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 320 F.3d 723, 727 (7th Cir.2003). In Weems, evidence of drug dealing at the house where the defendant was arrested helped establish why the defendant carried a weapon to the residence: for protection in a location where there was unlawful activity occurring. 322 F.3d 18, 25 (1st Cir.2003). The majority does not cite and nor have we located any authority holding that in an ordinary drug deal prosecution a defendant’s prior possession is relevant to establishing his motive to commit the instant drug offense. That Joshua’s prior possession helps establish that he was a drug dealer is unhelpful: the fact Joshua dealt drugs in the past is relevant only to Joshua’s propensity to deal drugs but not to his motive to deal drugs. See United States v. Varoudakis, 233 F.3d 113, 118 (1st Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>) (internal quotation marks omitted). The reason

A: holding for evidence to be admissible under rule 404b its relevance must not include bad character or propensity as a necessary link in the inferential chain
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 that rule 404b evidence is admissible in rebuttal
D: holding that to admit evidence of prior bad acts under rule 404b ala r evid the state must demonstrate that the evidence was reasonably necessary to its case
A.