Q: In this task, you will be shown a prompt from a judicial decision and multiple holding statements derived from citations following text in a legal decision. Holdings represent the governing legal rule when the law is applied to a particular set of facts. There are five answer choices for each citing text. The correct answer is the holding statement that corresponds to the citing text. You should write an incorrect option. Even though there exist multiple wrong answers, we only need a single wrong answer. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.
Cir.2008). If a defendant puts his intent and knowledge of a drug conspiracy in issue, the government can introduce evidence of a defendant's prior similar acts to help prove its case. United States v. Banks, 706 F.3d 901, 906-07 (8th Cir.2013). Wiggins put his intent and knowledge at issue at trial, and thus, if the conviction was (1) relevant, (2) similar in kind and not too remote, (3) supported by evidence and (4) not substantially more prejudicial than probative, it was admissible under Rule 404(b). Id. Of these four, the only plausibly contested element is remoteness, but since the convictions were in 2000, and the current conspiracy conduct occurred in 2009, they are not too remote according to our precedent. See, e.g., United States v. Ironi, 525 F.3d 683, 688 (8th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly the district court did not abuse
Holding statements: (A) holding that prior drug convictions that were four ten and eleven years old were not so remote from the charged drug offenses as to render them inadmissible (B) holding that prior distribution and possession convictions that were eight and ten years before the charged conduct occurred were not too remote (C) holding that collateral crime that occurred twelve years prior to charged offense not too remote in time (D) holding that eight years between prior convictions and the beginning of the charged conspiracy was not too remote (E) holding that a six year span between the prior offense and the charged conduct did not render the previous conviction too remote to be relevant to the defendants intent in the case then at bar
A:
holding that prior drug convictions that were four ten and eleven years old were not so remote from the charged drug offenses as to render them inadmissible