With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". when it is relevant to an issue in question other than.the character of the defendant, there is sufficient evidence to support a finding by the jury that the defendant committed the prior act, and the potential unfair prejudice does not substantially outweigh the probative value of the evidence.” United States v. Marin-Cifuentes, 866 F.2d 988, 996 (8th Cir.1989). A decision to admit evidence under Rule 404(b) “will not be disturbed unless ... the evidence in question clearly had no bearing upon any of the issues involved.” United States v. Estabrook, 774 F.2d 284, 287 (8th Cir.1985). Rule 404(b) evidence has been admitted to prove intent and lack of mistake in Sherman Act and mail fraud trials. See, e.g., United States v. Misle Bus & Equip. Co., 967 F.2d 1227, 1234 (8th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Suntar Roofing, Inc., 897

A: holding that evidence of a 10yearold drug conviction was properly admitted to show intent in a prosecution for possession with intent to distribute
B: holding evidence properly admitted as nonhearsay during trial in a title vii action to show nondiscriminatory intent
C: holding that evidence of prior drug transactions was admissible under rule 404b to show inter alia intent to enter into the drug conspiracy and knowledge of the conspiracy
D: holding in similar bus bid rigging trial that evidence of another conspiracy was properly admitted to show defendants knowledge and  general intent
D.