With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". It is of no moment that the marijuana was hidden in his vehicle’s bumper in 2000, whereas this time it was hidden in his vehicle’s gas tank. We recognize that the two incidents are not close in time; Morales-Beltran’s prior arrest occurred eleven years prior to the charged offense. However, “where prior acts were similar to those charged, previous decisions have upheld admission of evidence of acts up to twelve years old.” United States v. Smith, 282 F.3d 758, 769 (9th Cir.2002) (quoting United States v. Rude, 88 F.3d 1538, 1550 (9th Cir.1996)) (alteration omitted). Here, as in Smith, because the prior act is “similar to and probative of the charges” against Morales-Beltran, its “eleven year vintage is not fatal.” Id.; see also United States v. Ross, 886 F.2d 264, 267 (9th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the district court did not abuse

A: holding that the striking similarity between the acts alleged in the indictment and the prior incidents rendered incidents that occurred fifteen years prior to the acts alleged in the indictment relevant and admissible under rule 404b
B: holding federal copyright laws threeyear statute of limitations not to bar acts of infringement occurring within three years of action despite fact that related earlier acts of infringement were barred
C: holding as to the admissibility of prior bad acts that allegedly took place fourteen and twelve years before the acts alleged in that case that the lapse of time between the defendants sexual acts    goes to the weight of the evidence not to its admissibility
D: holding that acts occurring thirteen years before the acts in the instant case were not too remote given the similarity of the offenses
D.