With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to attribute quantity of drugs to a co-conspirator despite differences in the drugs’ "color and purity” because the drugs were reasonably foreseeable and within the scope of the conspirators’ agreement). 24 . We also reject Anderson’s contention that the district court erred in admitting his prior drug possession convictions as evidence of intent or state of mind. See supra Part IV(A). Anderson put his state of mind and intent into issue by pleading not guilty and claiming that he had not intended to possess the crack cocaine or participate in the conspiracy. The prior drug possession convictions, however, make it more likely that Anderson had knowledge of and intended to participate in the crimes committed by this group. See United States v. Willis, 6 F.3d 257, 262 (5th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Gadison, 8 F.3d 186, 192

A: holding prior drug convictions relevant to show that defendant had knowledge and intent necessary to possess drugs at issue in case
B: holding that previous firearm possessions were relevant to show defendants knowledge and intent to possess a firearm where police saw defendant holding and discarding a gun
C: holding that evidence of prior drug transactions was admissible under rule 404b to show inter alia intent to enter into the drug conspiracy and knowledge of the conspiracy
D: holding that despite differences in method evidence of subsequent drug smuggling could be admitted to show prior knowledge and intent
A.