applies to prevent an inventory of a vehicle after it has been impounded, we do not need to address the issue here. By its own terms, § 321J.4B(5)(a) only applies to impound-ments resulting from a violation of § 321 J.2, “Operating while under the influence d one from 1999, were both for possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute. They were certainly similar in kind, if not identical to, the charged offenses of possession of methamphetamine, cocaine and marijuana with intent to distribute. Furthermore, given the similarities between the prior convictions and the current offenses, which occurred in 2002, the prior convictions were not overly remote in time from the charged conduct. See Thomas, 398 F.3d at 1063; United States v. Frazier, 280 F.3d 835, 847 (8th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). Betterton makes no argument that the
holding that crimes of bank fraud punishable by up to five years imprisonment each were a serious offense for speedy trial act purposes holding evidence of similar drugrelated crimes five years in the past was well within the bounds of admission holding that drug testing lay well within the district courts discretion given elwells past use and past dealing in drugs holding that a potential prison sentence of up to five years was clearly serious holding that sentences of five years in prison followed by ten years probation were illegal sentences that exceeded the statutory maximum of five years for a thirddegree felony