With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". in full: Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident, provided that upon request by the accused, the prosecution in a criminal case shall provide reasonable notice in advance of trial, or during trial if the court excuses pretrial notice on good cause shown, of the general nature of any such evidence it intends to introduce at trial. 3 . Indeed, this .circuit has found prior act evidence admissible for a wide range of reasons unrelated to character. See, e.g., United States v. Sanchez, 118 F.3d 192, 195 (4th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>); Aramony, 88 F.3d at 1378 (holding evidence of

A: holding prior drug deals admissible to prove knowledge of the drug trade
B: recognizing firearms as common tools of the drug trade
C: holding that unknowing drug courier testimony was admissible in a complex drug importation case
D: holding that prior drug trafficking conviction was admissible to prove intent to distribute
A.