slight. The majority holds that Joshua’s motive was contested because the issues of motive and identity “were intertwined here given Joshua’s theory of mistaken identity, premised in part on his argument that he was principally a user.” Ante, at 473. The majority might be correct if the defense had disputed any material aspect of the Government’s case or that either Nathaniel or Joshua was the Expedition driver. The defense did not, however, challenge any feature of the drug transaction except for the identity of the man who handed the drugs to the informant. The defense did not contest that Joshua (as well as Nathaniel) had motive. No aspect of Joshua’s defense suggested that he did not have motive to commit the offense. Cf. United States v. Benton, 852 F.2d 1456, 1456 (6th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). Therefore the probative value of motive
holding that a district court errs by admitting a twelveyearold drug conviction to prove intent in a subsequent drug prosecution 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 evidence of drug dealing at house where defendant was arrested admissible in feloninpossessionoffirearm prosecution to establish defendant had motive to carry weapon holding a fiveyear old drug conviction is probative of a defendants state of mind in a drug conspiracy case holding defendant made motive issue in drug conspiracy prosecution by advancing theory he was conducting investigation of drug dealing