Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
amphetamine, the government had to show that Mendoza distributed amphetamine to a third party, that he did so knowingly and intentionally, and that he knew he was distributing a controlled substance.”); United States v. King, 356 F.3d 774, 779 (7th Cir.2004) (noting that the Government had to prove that the defen dant distributed methamphetamine knowingly or intentionally, knowing that substance was a controlled substance). 2 . See United States v. Mallett, 496 F.3d 798, 801-02 (7th Cir.2007) (concluding that evidence of a drug sale eight months before the charged conduct was properly admitted to show intent and knowledge in a prosecution for maintaining a crack distribution place and for possession with intent to distribute); United States v. Hurn, 496 F.3d 784, 787-88 (7th Cir.2007) ; see also United States v. Blount, 502 F.3d
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that prior drug trafficking conviction was admissible to prove intent to distribute
B. holding that evidence of a 10yearold drug conviction was properly admitted to show intent in a prosecution for possession with intent to distribute
C. holding that a prior conviction for possession with intent to distribute cocaine is admissible under rule 609
D. holding no unfair prejudice from admission of conviction for possession of 50 to 200 pounds of marijuana with intent to distribute as evidence of intent to distribute cocaine
E. holding that evidence that defendants had participated in several prior drug transactions was properly admitted to establish defendants intent to distribute narcotics
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.