in conduct which constitutes a substantial step toward the com mission of the crime, thus creating circumstances strongly corroborative of criminal intent. United States v. McDowell, 705 F.2d 426, 427-28 (11th Cir.1983); United States v. Mandujano, 499 F.2d 370, 376 (5th Cir.1974). On appeal, Moore only argues that the government failed to produce sufficient evidence that he engaged in conduct constituting a substantial step toward the commission of the crime. A substantial step must be shown by objective acts that are strongly corroborative of criminal intent. United States v. Carothers, 121 F.3d 659, 661 (11th Cir.1997). A substantial step does not require an actual exchange so long as other objective acts corroborate an intent to complete the crime. See McDowell, 705 F.2d at 427-28 (<HOLDING>). Here, there was sufficient evidence for the
holding that the defendants prior drug conviction for simple possession did not constitute a controlled substance offense because the plain language of  4b12b requires that the prior conviction involve possession with intent to distribute holding that the defendant had completed a substantial step toward possession with intent to distribute despite defendants refusal to complete the transaction based on acts including 1 a prior drug transaction 2 recorded phone conversations about a possible cocaine deal 3 defendants trip to the site of the deal and 4 defendants conversations with the informant at the location of the deal holding that evidence that defendants had participated in several prior drug transactions was properly admitted to establish defendants intent to distribute narcotics recognizing step transaction doctrine whereby courts must consider all steps of transaction in light of entire transaction so that substance of transaction will control over form of each step holding that a prior conviction for possession with intent to distribute cocaine is admissible under rule 609