With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 78 F.3d at 1077. Listing preparation, plan, knowledge, and absence of mistake was not error in this case because these purposes in the broad instruction overlapped with intent. When a defendant argues that he was an innocent participant in a scheme, there can be little difference among putting his intent, plan, preparation, knowledge, or absence of mistake at issue. All of these purposes serve the same end in this case. For instance the Tenth Circuit in a drug possession case has held that evidence of prior crimes was properly admissible to demonstrate plan, knowledge, intent, and absence of mistake. See United States v. Conway, 73 F.3d 975, 981 (10th Cir.1995). See also United States v. Rank, Nos. 84r-1257/1870, 85-1249, 1986 WL 18059, at *2 n. 5 (6th Cir. Oct. 14, 1986) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). Although these purposes of course may not

A: holding parol evidence is admissible to show mistake
B: holding other acts evidence that was permissible to demonstrate a plan to defraud was also admissible to establish intent knowledge and absence of mistake
C: holding prior acts of illegal drug distribution admissible to show modus operandi knowledge and absence of mistake
D: holding that the question of guilty knowledge and especially intent to defraud may be shown by other than direct evidence
B.