was compelling. As the BIA observed, the IJ also relied on a contemporaneous police report indicating that Nowak was arrested for possessing: (1) 18.3 grams of marijuana; (2) a digital scale coated with marijuana residue; (3) numerous small plastic bags of the sort commonly used to package drugs; and several legal pads containing names, phone numbers, and dollar amounts, which police suspected to be drug ledgers. See Certified Administrative Record (“CAR”) 4; see also id. at 223. Because these facts alone were sufficient to provide “reasonable, substantial, and probative” evidence that Nowak was or had been an illicit trafficker in marijuana, his plea-based challenge necessarily fails. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(C); cf., e.g., United States v. Perez, 144 F.3d 204, 208 (2d Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). Nowak’s various challenges to the police
holding evidence of plastic jeweler bags together with drug ledger amount of drugs and lack of paraphernalia to consume drugs was sufficient to support jurys finding of intent to distribute and absence of money and digital scales was not outcome determinative in light of other evidence holding that simple possession of cocaine is not lesser included offense of conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute holding there was insufficient evidence to prove intent to distribute where the defendant dropped a plastic bag containing loose white rocks of cocaine and there was no other indicia of the defendants intent such as the drugs being packaged in smaller baggies holding similar evidence sufficient to sustain a jury verdict of possession with intent to distribute cocaine holding that defendants collective possession of plastic baggies beepers and scales  in conjunction with other evasive action  was sufficient evidence for jury to find conspiracy to distribute and possess cocaine beyond reasonable doubt