920, 99 S.Ct. 1244, 59 L.Ed.2d 472 (1979). Evidence is relevant “if it makes the existence of any fact at issue more or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” United States v. Williams, 900 F.2d 823, 826 (5th Cir.1990). As we stated in Beechum, “[i]t is derogative of the search for truth to allow a defendant to tell his story of innocence without facing him with evidence impeaching that story.” 582 F.2d at 909. Evidence that Bonner was previously convicted of a cocaine delivery offense tends to refute his story that he was merely “in the wrong place at the wrong time,” and makes it more probable that he had the requisite “state of mind” or “intent” to participate in the present cocaine-related offenses. See United States v. Cheramie, 51 F.3d 538, 541-42 (5th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we hold that the district court
holding that a prior conviction for possession with intent to distribute cocaine is admissible under rule 609 holding that evidence of prior drug transactions was admissible under rule 404b to show inter alia intent to enter into the drug conspiracy and knowledge of the conspiracy holding that a prior conviction for using a communications device to facilitate the distribution of cocaine was admissible under rule 404b to prove that the defendant had the requisite intent to distribute cocaine 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 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