the connection between the other crime and the charged crime is strong, admission may be appropriate, even if the other acts were remote in time.”). Here, any concerns about the other-acts evidence being too remote are outweighed by the similarity between the other-acts evidence and the crimes charged. The challenged testimony revealed that Mr. Watson previously cultivated marijuana with the same individual with whom he was currently charged. For all practical purposes, the other-acts evidence demonstrated that Mr. Watson previously engaged in almost the exact same conduct with the exact same person. When the similarities are this evident, we have had no trouble concluding that the “[similarity of [the] prior acts to the charged offense[s] ... outweighfs] conce 3, 873 (5th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>); Meacham, 115 F.3d at 1495 (holding that
holding that uncharged sexual acts committed upon the same victim are admissible to show the conduct of the defendant toward the victim and to corroborate the evidence of the offense charged in the indictment holding on a criminal appeal that prior bad acts evidence is admissible to prove intent to commit the charged crime holding that evidence of an eighteenyearold conviction was admissible to show intent because that conviction involved exactly the same crime as was charged in the indictment 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 prior drug trafficking conviction was admissible to prove intent to distribute