73 Fed.Reg. at 217. Hence, he is not yet eligible to be considered for a reduced sentence. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment and leave it to the defendant to file an appropriate motion when he becomes eligible. VI For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is Affirmed. 1 . See., e.g., In re Sealed Case, 488 F.3d 1011, 1019 (D.C.Cir.2007) (stating that evidence of the defendant's prior crack sale was admissible to prove knowledge and intent regarding crack found in the defendant's apartment); United States v. Douglas, 482 F.3d 591, 600 (D.C.Cir.2007) (rejecting a challenge to the use of the defendant's prior arrest for selling crack at his trial for possession with intent to distribute crack); United States v. Rogers, 918 F.2d 207, 210 (D.C.Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). 2 . See Crowder, 141 F.3d at 1210 (noting
holding that evidence that the accused possessed 37 grams of crack was sufficient to prove he had the intent to distribute it 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 the defendants prior distribution of crack was admissible to prove that he had intent and knowledge regarding crack found in a gym bag holding two prior convictions for distribution of crack relevant to show intent to distribute the crack found in defendants possession holding evidence of prior drug sales admissible under 404b to show knowledge and intent where defendant claimed he did not know that the gym bag he took possession of contained two kilograms of cocaine