With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". establish distribution.” United States v. Vaandering, 50 F.3d 696, 703 (9th Cir.1995). We do not require a lesser included instruction in such circumstances, because once a jury determines that a defendant possessed the drugs, “it could not rationally conclude that there was no intent to distribute.” United States v. Powell, 932 F.2d 1337, 1342 (9th Cir.1991) (refusing to require a lesser included offense instruction where the defendant had more than eleven pounds of cocaine hidden in a bag in his basement; various smaller amounts of cocaine located throughout his house; rinsed-kilogram bags, which had recently held cocaine; a portable electronic scale and triple beam balance; a currency counter; and $162,000 in cash) (citing United States v. Espinosa, 827 F.2d 604, 615 (9th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>)). This rule is not applicable here because the

A: holding similar evidence sufficient to sustain a jury verdict of possession with intent to distribute cocaine
B: holding that a prior conviction for using a communications device to facilitate the distribution of cocaine was admissible under rule 404b to prove that the defendant had the requisite intent to distribute cocaine
C: holding no unfair prejudice from admission of conviction for possession of 50 to 200 pounds of marijuana with intent to distribute as evidence of intent to distribute cocaine
D: holding that a rational jury could only conclude there was an intent to distribute where the defendant possessed sixtynine pounds of cocaine in an unfurnished apartment to which the defendant had keys
D.