With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". distribution. See id. at 997 (“[T]he more similar the prior act is (in terms of physical similarity or mental state) to the act being proved, the more relevant it becomes.”). Thus, the evidence was relevant to Day’s intent and the absence of a mistake. In addition, the evidence was necessary to corroborate other testimony that had been challenged on credibility grounds, and to provide additional objective evidence that Day intended to join the charged conspiracy with the intent to distribute cocaine. Moreover, the admission of the conviction was not excessively prejudicial because the conviction involved the same type of drug and the conduct occurred in relatively the same time period as the offenses charged in the indictment. See United States v. Boyd, 53 F.3d 631, 637 (4th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). Further, the Government gave advance notice

A: holding there is no unfair prejudice when the prior act is no more sensational or disturbing than the evidence admitted directly supporting the crimes with which the defendant was charged
B: holding that the rule 403 balancing favored admissibility where the uncharged kidnapping was not more sensational or inflammatory than the charged crimes while tending to show how the relationships formed among the conspirators
C: holding that evidence of violent crimes and other illegal activities of defendants gang was not unduly prejudicial because defendant was not directly implicated and the evidence was probative of elements of the crimes that the defendant was charged with
D: holding that a sentence is not excessive if it is within statutory limitations and there are no facts supporting an allegation of prejudice against the defendant
A.