With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". conviction was substantially outweighed by the danger of undue prejudice. See Matthews, 431 F.3d at 1310-11. Scanes placed his knowledge and intent at issue by pleading not guilty. See id. at 1298, 1311 (concluding the defendant had placed his intent at issue by pleading not guilty to conspiracy to distribute cocaine). Scanes’s prior conviction for possession with intent to sell or deliver cocaine was probative of his state of mind in this case. Aside from the prior conviction, the only evidence of knowledge and intent presented by the government was the presence and amount of drugs found in the car Scanes was driving. Absent other evidence of Scanes’s state of mind, the prosecutorial need for the evidence was high. See United States v. Richardson, 764 F.2d 1514, 1523 (11th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>). The age of Scanes’s prior conviction also

A: holding that simple possession of cocaine is not lesser included offense of conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute
B: recognizing where the government did not have overwhelming evidence of the defendants predisposition to possess or distribute cocaine or his knowledge about such matters  the extrinsic evidence had a relatively high incremental value and was not easily excludable
C: holding that evidence of specific uncharged drug trafficking offenses were not extrinsic to prosecution for conspiracy to possess and distribute cocaine where the events occurred within the time period of the alleged conspiracy and were demonstrative of the conspirators conduct
D: holding that a new trial is warranted if the evidence is merely material or favorable to the defense where the government has either 1 deliberately suppressed evidence or 2 ignored evidence of such high value that it could not have escaped its attention
B.