jury instructions explaining the purpose for admitting prior bad acts evidence and advance notice of the intent to introduce such evidence provide additional protection to defendants. See Queen, 132 F.3d at 997. We review the admission of evidence for abuse of discretion. See id. at 995. Hodge does not challenge the reliability of the admitted evidence. Rather, he contends that it was irrelevant, unnecessary, and unduly prejudicial. We conclude, however, that the evidence of Hodge’s 1996 drug transactions was relevant and necessary in that it tended to show the existence of a continuing narcotics business and therefore to show Hodge’s knowledge of the drug trade and his intent to distribute the cocaine found in his Jeep. See United States v. Sanchez, 118 F.3d 192, 196 (4th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Clarke, 24 F.3d 257, 264-65
holding on a criminal appeal that prior bad acts evidence is admissible to prove intent to commit the charged crime holding that the more similar the prior bad act is to the charged crime the more relevant the prior bad act becomes toward proving intent holding that the rule 404b evidence admitted to prove intent was clearly relevant because intent was at issue in the trial holding intoxication is only a defense to specific intent crimes and not general intent crimes 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