we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying McLendon’s motion for a mistrial. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is Affirmed. 1 . The court apparently interpreted its prior instruction barring testimony "about guns” as including ammunition, 1/4/00 Tr. at 6, an interpretation the government does not dispute. 2 . The government explains that it was this evidence, and not testimony concerning the ammunition, that the prosecutor had been attempting to elicit by asking the investigator whether he had recovered "anything else.” Appellee’s Br. at 14. 3 . See, e.g., United States v. Brown, 334 F.3d 1161, 1171 (D.C.Cir.2003); United States v. Conyers, 118 F.3d 755, 757 (D.C.Cir. 1997). 4 . See United States v. Dunn, 846 F.2d 761, 764 (D.C.Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Payne, 805 F.2d 1062, 1065
holding that the presence of firearms may go toward proving that a defendant possessed drugs with the intent to distribute recognizing that firearms are regularly found on narcotics traffickers holding that evidence that defendants had participated in several prior drug transactions was properly admitted to establish defendants intent to distribute narcotics holding prior arrest in connection with an undercover drug buy admissible to show intent to distribute narcotics holding that juries may infer an intent to distribute narcotics from the presence of firearms