establish distribution.” United States v. Vaandering, 50 F.3d 696, 703 (9th Cir.1995). We do not require a lesser included instruction in such circumstances, because once a jury determines that a defendant possessed the drugs, “it could not rationally conclude that there was no intent to distribute.” United States v. Powell, 932 F.2d 1337, 1342 (9th Cir.1991) (refusing to require a lesser included offense instruction where the defendant had more than eleven pounds of cocaine hidden in a bag in his basement; various smaller amounts of cocaine located throughout his house; rinsed-kilogram bags, which had recently held cocaine; a portable electronic scale and triple beam balance; a currency counter; and $162,000 in cash) (citing United States v. Espinosa, 827 F.2d 604, 615 (9th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>)). This rule is not applicable here because the
holding that a rational jury could only conclude there was an intent to distribute where the defendant possessed sixtynine pounds of cocaine in an unfurnished apartment to which the defendant had keys holding no unfair prejudice from admission of conviction for possession of 50 to 200 pounds of marijuana with intent to distribute as evidence of intent to distribute cocaine holding that a prior conviction for using a communications device to facilitate the distribution of cocaine was admissible under rule 404b to prove that the defendant had the requisite intent to distribute cocaine holding similar evidence sufficient to sustain a jury verdict of possession with intent to distribute cocaine holding that statements by defendant and apartment manager that defendant lived in the apartment where drugs were found demonstrated his control over the apartment even though no documents personal effects or keys were found