that he had never grown marijuana with Mr. Shuck, had never sold or distributed marijuana, and was unaware that Mr. Shuck was growing marijuana in the trailer located on his land, despite having visited the trailer on multiple occasions. The challenged testimony regarding Mr. Watson’s previous outdoor marijuana grow with Mr. Shuck was thus admissible to prove that Mr. Watson had engaged in the charged crimes with the requisite knowledge and intent. Put differently, the evidence of Mr. Watson’s prior outdoor growing activity with Mr. Shuck served to prove that Mr. Watson knew that Mr. Shuck was growing marijuana for distribution in the trailer on his land and that he intended to participate in that enterprise with Mr. Watson, as he had previously done. See Cherry, 433 F.3d at 700-01 (<HOLDING>); Ramirez, 63 F.3d at 943 (holding that
holding that a prior conviction for transporting cocaine was probative of the intent required for participation in a separate plan to transport cocaine holding that a prior conviction for possession with intent to distribute cocaine is admissible under rule 609 holding that prior drug trafficking conviction was admissible to prove intent to distribute holding that simple possession of cocaine is not lesser included offense of conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute 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