inextricably intertwined with the evidence regarding the charged offense. Evidence, not part of the crime charged but pertaining to the chain of event ant case, the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence that Miller’s history of drug dealing with Jasmin began in 2001, approximately six years before the commencement of the charged conspiracy. This evidence was intrinsic evidence admissible as inextricably related to the charged crimes. It established the beginning of the drug-dealing relationship between Jasmin and Miller and was linked in time and circumstances to the charged offenses; therefore, it also established the context of the charged conspiracy. See Edouard, 485 F.3d at 1344. See also United States v. Costa, 691 F.2d 1358, 1361 (11th Cir.1982) (<HOLDING>). The evidence is also admissible as
holding that evidence showing how a witness came to know the defendant as a cocaine dealer was admissible as inextricably intertwined holding that evidence of a threat to a witness by the defendant is relevant as showing an attempt to prevent a witness from testifying and avoid punishment for the crime holding that evidence that the defendant and a witness sold drugs together was relevant to prove how the witness knew the defendant holding that inextricably intertwined evidence is intrinsic evidence that is admissible if its probative value outweighs the danger of prejudice 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