With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". in the home only occasionally and that he falsely confessed to owning the drugs because he was afraid of retaliation by the real drug dealers. Just like the defendants in Chavis and Macedo, Hurn claimed that he was an innocent bystander who was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Accordingly, the prior conviction was relevant on the issue of Hum’s intent. Hurn also maintains that the 1995 conviction was too remote to be relevant and that its unfair prejudice substantially outweighed its probative value. We have held that a district court does not abuse its discretion by admitting thirteen-year-old evidence of prior bad acts where the prior conduct is very similar to the conduct charged. See United States v. Wimberly, 60 F.3d 281, 285 (7th Cir.1995); see also Macedo, 406 F.3d at 793 (<HOLDING>). Cf. United States v. Garcia, 291 F.3d 127,

A: holding that a new trial was the remedy for erroneous admission of rule 404b evidence
B: holding that admission of rule 404b evidence was proper
C: holding that structural evidence showing the inception of the conspiracy prior to the charged activities was admissible under rule 404b
D: holding that the admission of rule 404b evidence is proper in a drug case where nine years elapse between the prior conduct and the conduct charged
D.