drug sales relevant to show defendant’s motive in felon in possession charge), the extrinsic evidence must have at least some plausible non-character relevance to the charged conduct to be admissible under 404(b). The evidence never specified what Williams’ intent, motive, or modus operandi was in carrying out the Coley shootings, and thus this incident is only relevant to show that Williams is more likely to commit crimes because he has done so in the past, which is exactly the inference that Rule 404(b) forbids. Moreover, even if this evidence were relevant to show something other than action in conformity with past crimes, any such relevance is substantially outweighed by the evidence’s dramatic prejudicial effect. See United States v. Sanchez, 722 F.2d 1501, 1507-08 (11th Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>); see also, Church, 955 F.2d at 702. The
holding that a reasonable jury could have concluded based on repeated references to the substance as cocaine and testimony from witnesses who had used the substances which they believed to be cocaine that substance was cocaine holding testimony that the defendant who was charged with conspiracy to import importation of and possession of cocaine killed two people in furtherance of the conspira cy after he received a bad cocaine shipment was inadmissible under rule 403 recognizing possession of cocaine as a lesserincluded offense of possession of cocaine with intent to sell holding that simple possession of cocaine is not lesser included offense of conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute holding that district court did not err in determining that cocaine base was crack cocaine based on chemical analysis identifying cocaine base together with competent lay testimony bridging the evidentiary gap between cocaine base and crack cocaine and refusing to require showing of smokeability ie water solubility or melting point for purposes of establishing crack cocaine under the guidelines since smokeability distinguishes cocaine base from powder cocaine not from crack