criminal intent because “[t]he similarity of circumstances in which Angu-lo-Quinones found himself, apprehended off the Colombian coast in a flagless, go-fast boat surrounded by large quantities of cocaine is highly probative of his criminal intent.” Id. at 1354. The obvious difference between Watson’s situation and Ramirez is that Watson’s prior act was dissimilar from his charged conduct at trial. When Watson was found in August 2013, no undocumented individuals were on the boat, nor was there any suggestion that the boat had dropped off any passengers. By contrast, when Angulo-Quinones was discovered the first time, his boat had cocaine around it. No similar evidence connects Watson’s August 2013 incident to the smuggling of undocumented immigrants. Cf. Dominguez, 661 F.3d at 1073 (<HOLDING>). The fallacy of the government’s theory is
holding that parol evidence is admissible to determine intent of parties holding that a previous incident of an actual smuggling was admissible to establish intent to smuggle holding that prior battery was admissible to prove defendants intent to injure holding that extrinsic evidence admissible to determine intent of parties holding other acts evidence that was permissible to demonstrate a plan to defraud was also admissible to establish intent knowledge and absence of mistake