evidence would have been admissible as proof of intent, but for intent not being contested at trial. Because we again disagree that Joshu t an inference of any mental state (e.g. a desire for money, jealousy, or revenge) that is casually related to an issue in the case. The majority holds the prior possession is relevant to establishing that Joshua was a dealer rather than merely a user of drugs, but this is propensity evidence, not evidence of a mental state that explains Joshua’s involvement in the charged offense. Accordingly, Joshua’s prior possession is not relevant to establishing his motive to commit the charged offense and fails even the first step of the Beechum analysis. Second, both Joshua’s prior possession and his concurrent statement fail step two of the Bee 4th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Johnson, 27 F.3d 1186,
holding that the eighth amendment requires finding that a felony murder defendant killed or attempted to kill holding 404b evidence admissible under intent exception but not motive exception where motive not contested holding 404b motive evidence admissible where murder statute required government to prove not only that defendant killed victim but that she killed victim for purpose of preventing him or anyone else from providing law enforcement with information about federal crimes she committed holding that evidence the victim tried to keep defendant from fleeing the scene of a crime and defendant killed victim in order to escape supported the finding that murder was committed to avoid arrest holding that evidence the defendant knew the victim supported a finding that the murder was committed to avoid arrest