with intent....”). 14 . We mention Mr. Watson’s testimony on the matters here only to firmly underscore the point that knowledge and intent were at issue. When the court decided to admit Mr. Shuck’s testimony, there would not have been any certainty, of course, that Mr. Watson would testify and dispute these elements. However, on appeal, Mr. Watson does not contest that knowledge and intent were at issue. Moreover, even if he had, it is clear that they were at issue because the government had to prove them to obtain a guilty verdict and Mr. Watson at no time conceded at trial that they were met. Whether these elements were at issue is important because, had they not been, any Rule 404(b) evidence offered to prove their presence would not have been relevant. See Cherry, 433 F.3d at 701 (<HOLDING>). 15 . Mr. Watson’s heavy reliance on United
holding that a notguilty plea places defendants intent at issue and evidence of similar prior crimes can thus be relevant to prove intent to commit charged crime holding that admission of rule 404b evidence was proper holding where the prosecution had to prove the defendant had the intent to gratify his sexual desires that the intent exception to rule 404b is dispositive holding there was no rule 404b violation where the evidence was admitted to show knowledge and knowledge was an element of the crime charged holding that the rule 404b evidence admitted to prove intent was clearly relevant because intent was at issue in the trial