propensity to commit criminal acts.” United States v. Williams, 308 F.3d 833, 837 (8th Cir.2002) (quoting United States v. Howard, 235 F.3d 366, 372 (8th Cir.2000)). For evidence of past crimes to be admissible under Rule 404(b), the evidence must be (1) relevant to a material issue; (2) similar in kind and not overly remote in time to the charged crime; (3) supported by sufficient evidence; and (4) such that its potential prejudice does not substantially outweigh its probative value. Williams, 308 F.3d at 837. Betterton argues that his prior convictions were not relevant to a material issue. However, evidence of past drug-related crimes is relevant to establish knowledge and intent for the charged drug offense. See, e.g., United States v. Thomas, 398 F.3d 1058, 1062 (8th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Mendoza, 341 F.3d 687, 692
holding two prior convictions for distribution of crack relevant to show intent to distribute the crack found in defendants possession holding that a federal agents expert testimony regarding the characteristics of crack cocaine and the methods of its distribution was admissible and highly relevant in helping the jury resolve the central issue of whether the defendant possessed crack cocaine with intent to distribute holding that evidence that the accused possessed 37 grams of crack was sufficient to prove he had the intent to distribute it holding that the defendants prior distribution of crack was admissible to prove that he had intent and knowledge regarding crack found in a gym bag holding that the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction under  856 where premises contained two white envelopes containing thirtytwo packs of crack cocaine equipment required for the manufacture and packaging of crack cocaine fortyone white envelopes containing particles of crack cocaine and crack cocaine stored in a laundry bag in the bathroom