Is there a bright line rule that excludes evidence of a prior conviction from a child as remote as it is too remote in time?

We disagree. In United States v. Spillone, 879 F.2d 514, 519 (9th Cir.1989), we expressly refused to adopt a bright line rule concerning remoteness. Rather than rely on an inflexible standard that excludes evidence of prior crimes after a certain amount of time lapses, we embraced a theory of admissability that considers remoteness in conjunction with other factors. Id. In this case, we believe that the offenses are sufficiently similar that the prior convictions remain probative and relevant and are not so remote as to require exclusion. See United States v. Kindred, 931 F.2d 609, 613 (9th Cir.1991) (finding that an eleven-year-old conviction was not too remote in time); United States v. Ross, 886 F.2d 264, 267 (9th Cir.1989) (finding that a thirteen-year-old conviction was not too remote in time).