With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". was not of sufficient importance as to have significantly impaired his ability to defend himself. Queen was aware that evidence of Hester’s acts would be introduced at trial because the indictment' charged that Hester’s acts were part of the conspiracy. Furthermore, the government presented ample evidence for . the period of March 1995 alone to convict Queen of conspiracy. Indeed, the jury’s question suggests that its concern was whether it could find a conspiracy only from events after the start of the indictment’s time frame. In these circumstances, we cannot find that the trial court’s failure to limit the use of Hester’s early acts was so important as to have seriously diminished Queen’s ability to defend himself. Similarly, the district court’s decision not to explain t Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Boyd, 53 F.3d 631, 636-37

A: holding parol evidence is admissible to show mistake
B: holding prior drug deals admissible to prove knowledge of the drug trade
C: holding other acts evidence that was permissible to demonstrate a plan to defraud was also admissible to establish intent knowledge and absence of mistake
D: holding prior acts of illegal drug distribution admissible to show modus operandi knowledge and absence of mistake
D.