case, such as we have here, makes intent a material issue and opens the door to admission of prior drug-related offenses as highly probative, and not overly prejudicial, evidence ola defendant’s intent.”) In applying the second prong of the Chavez test, the evidence of defendant’s prior 1998 convictions must be sufficient to support a finding that he actually committed the acts in question. As to the Cannabis conviction, the evidence consisted of a transcript of the plea, conviction and sentence. Certainly, the conviction itself is sufficient proof that he committed the pri- or act. “The fact that the conviction was based on a guilty plea is inconsequential. See United States v. Edwards, 696 F.2d 1277, 1280 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 909, 103 S.Ct. 1884, 76 L.Ed.2d 813 (1983) (<HOLDING>)” Calderon, 127 F.3d at 1332. The evidence as
holding that proponent of 404b evidence must identify a proper 404b purpose for admission  that is at issue in  the case holding appellate argument that statement violated rule 404b was improper because it was the defendant who elicited the statement at trial holding that admission of rule 404b evidence was proper holding that rule 404b evidence is admissible in rebuttal holding that appellants own statement admitting act even if mere puffery is sufficient to justify a jury finding that he committed the act for purposes of rule 404b