knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.” In deciding whether to admit such evidence, “[t]he court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of- one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.” Fed.R.Evid. 403. A critical factual dispute in this case was whether the relationship between Gemma and A.L. was that of a pimp and prostitute. Therefore, evidence that Gem-ma was in the prostitution business and exercised control over prostitutes other than A.L., sometimes by means of physical violence, was highly probative of Gemma’s intent. See United States v. Jarrett, 956 F.2d 864, 866-67 (8th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Love, 449 Fed.Appx. 338,
holding that the rule 404b evidence admitted to prove intent was clearly relevant because intent was at issue in the trial 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 evidence of prior drug transactions was admissible under rule 404b to show inter alia intent to enter into the drug conspiracy and knowledge of the conspiracy holding that rule 404b evidence is admissible in rebuttal holding testimony by witnesses that defendant approached them seeking to secure their services as prostitutes in his employ was admissible under rule 404b to show knowledge and intent