F.3d at 844 (affirming on an alternative ground when only two of the three relevant factors were met). 13 . By focusing solely on the other-acts evidence's permitted uses to establish Mr. Watson’s knowledge and intent, we do not mean to suggest that the evidence would not be admissible for other reasons consistent with Rule 404(b). We choose to focus on knowledge and intent, however, because all of the crimes with which Mr. Watson was charged require a showing of at least one of these two categories of criminal intent, and because such other-acts evidence is frequently offered to prove both knowledge and intent in drug cases such as this, given that the two concepts are related. See, e.g., United States v. Russell, 109 F.3d 1503, 1507 (10th Cir.1997) (White, J., sitting by designation) (<HOLDING>); see also 2 Jack B. Weinstein & Margaret A.
holding prior drug deals admissible to prove knowledge of the drug trade 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 holding a fiveyear old drug conviction is probative of a defendants state of mind in a drug conspiracy case holding that structural evidence showing the inception of the conspiracy prior to the charged activities was admissible under rule 404b 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