With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". that he “was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.” We held that the defendant’s prior drug conviction was admissible to prove intent. Chavis, 429 F.3d at 668. In Macedo, the defendant was arrested at O’Hare airport after he met two Mexican nationals who had attempted to smuggle methamphetamine into the country. At trial, he claimed that he had nothing to do with the drug conspiracy and was at the airport “by happenstance.” We held that a nine-year-old drug conviction was admissible to prove intent. Macedo, 406 F.3d at 793. In this case, Hurn conceded in his closing argument that he knew there were cash and drugs in the home, but maintained that he did not know how much cash or what kind of drugs were there because none of it was his. He maintained that he sta 39 (2d Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). Here, Hum’s previous conviction involved

A: holding prior drug deals admissible to prove knowledge of the drug trade
B: holding that evidence of a 10yearold drug conviction was properly admitted to show intent in a prosecution for possession with intent to distribute
C: holding that prior drug trafficking conviction was admissible to prove intent to distribute
D: holding that a district court errs by admitting a twelveyearold drug conviction to prove intent in a subsequent drug prosecution
D.