With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Rule of Evidence 609(a). These convictions included: (1) an October 31, 2000 conviction for possession of controlled substances with intent to deliver; (2) an August 20, 2001 conviction for carrying a firearm without a license; (3) a January 26, 2005 conviction for possession of controlled substances with intent to deliver; and (4) a January 27, 2005 conviction for possession of controlled su onies the government asked Ga-ston about on cross-examination. The government contends that it questioned Gaston about only two of the felonies — the felony that he had already admitted to on direct examination and one of the 2005 felonies. Gaston, on the other hand, contends the government asked him about all three felonies. Although we find the government’s reading of the tri 40 (7th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). Thus, the critical question is whether the

A: holding that prior convictions for simple possession were not similar to the importation of marijuana and thus lack probative value
B: recognizing possession of cocaine as a lesserincluded offense of possession of cocaine with intent to sell
C: holding that a prior conviction for possession with intent to distribute cocaine is admissible under rule 609
D: holding that prior convictions for possession of cocaine and marijuana are admissible to impeach defendant
D.