With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". came from co-conspirators who had either entered into cooperation agreements providing for reduced sentences or who anticipated that their truthful testimony would bring about leniency in sentencing. Since the testimony of such witnesses here and in Calderon was subject to heavy attack as to believability, obviously in each case it is difficult to prove the negative that the government had no need to introduce evidence of the accused’s prior drug activity to establish his intent. Calderon, 127 F.3d at 1332. Defendant suggests that the two 1998 convictions are too remote to be admissible as 404(b) evidence. At the time of the trial in 2003, the 1998 convictions were five years old. Our holdings do not support this argument. U.S. v. Pollock, 926 F.2d 1044, 1047, 1048 (11th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>) Calderon, 127 F.3d at 1332 (a six-year span

A: holding that in certain circumstances where a defendant is convicted of a charge alleging a conspiracy to distribute one drug or another he must be sentenced as if the conviction were only for a conspiracy involving the drug that triggers the lowest statutory sentencing range
B: holding that a state conviction is a drug trafficking offense because the trafficked drug is listed in a csa schedule
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 a fiveyear old drug conviction is probative of a defendants state of mind in a drug conspiracy case
D.