With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 839, 184 L.Ed.2d 652 (2013) ("Conspiracy actually has two intent elements — intent to further the unlawful purpose and the level of intent required for proving the underlying substantive offense."). 61 . United States v. Gadison, 8 F.3d 186, 192 (5th Cir.1993); United States v. Prati, 861 F.2d 82, 86 (5th Cir.1988). 62 . See United States v. Beechum, 582 F.2d 898, 912-13 (5th Cir.1978) (“[A]s a predicate to a determination that the extrinsic offense is relevant, the Government must offer proof demonstrating that the defendant committed the offense.”). 63 . Fed.R.Evid. 403. 64 . Beechum, 582 F.2d at 914. 65 . Fed.R.Evid. 404 advisory committee’s note, 1991 amendments; United States v. Blount, 502 F.3d 674, 678 (7th Cir.2007); United States v. Gorman, 312 F.3d 1159, 1163 (10th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). 66 . Fed.R.Evid. 404 advisory committee’s

A: holding that verbal notice was sufficient
B: holding that substantial compliance with notice is sufficient
C: holding statement of points in notice of appeal sufficient
D: holding 57 days notice before deadline to file a complaint under  523 was sufficient notice when creditor had actual notice of filing
A.