at 786. “ ‘While no single piece of evidence may be sufficient, the “combined force of many concurrent and related circumstances, each insufficient in itself, may lead a reasonable mind irresistibly to a conclusion.” ’ ” Derr v. Commonwealth, 242 Va. 413, 425, 410 S.E.2d 662, 669 (1991) (quoting Stamper v. Commonwealth, 220 Va. 260, App. 219, 222, 391 S.E.2d 340, 341 (1990) (noting that if the quantity of drugs possessed is greater than that ordinarily possessed for personal use, that fact alone may be sufficient to prove intent; however, where the quantity is small, the fact finder may infer the drugs were intended for personal use)); 3) presence or absence of drug paraphernalia for personal use (see Welshman v. Commonwealth, 28 Va.App. 20, 37, 502 S.E.2d 122, 130 (1998) (en banc) (<HOLDING>)); 4) expert testimony (see Askew v.
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 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 evidence of a 10yearold drug conviction was properly admitted to show intent in a prosecution for possession with intent to distribute holding that a reputation for sobriety from drugs and alcohol is pertinent to the charge of possession of drug paraphernalia because intent to use is an element of the offense recognizing the absence of drug paraphernalia suggestive of personal use as evidence of an intent to distribute