607 (4th Cir. 1990) (quoting United States v. Rawle, 845 F,2d 1244, 1247 (4th Cir. 1988)). Evidence of a defendant’s prior acts may be admitted under Rule 404(b) if the evidence satisfies four factors: (1) The prior-act evidence must be relevant to an issue other than character, such as intent; (2) it must be necessary to prove an element of the crime charged; (3) it must be reliable; and (4) as required by Federal Rule of Evidence 403, its probative value must not be “substantially outweighed” by its prejudicial nature. Queen, 132 F.3d at 995. For the first and second factors, we have held that a defendant’s previous possession of firearms may be relevant to proving intent to possess a firearm on a subsequent occasion. See United States v. Teague, 737 F.2d 378, 381 (4th Cir. 1984) (<HOLDING>). In this case, the district court found
holding that in a prosecution for possession of an unregistered firearm evidence of an armed robbery committed with the firearm was admissible holding that prior possession of a firearm is relevant when defendant denies knowing about the firearms presence holding that to apply the firearm enhancement the firearm need only reflect the context of the defendants possession and the defendants ability to use the firearm to promote the controlled substance offense holding that possession of a pistol in public requires knowing possession holding that the term carry requires knowing possession and bearing movement conveyance or transportation of the firearm