What is the test for admissible evidence in a conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute marijuana?

We hold that the judge adequately explained the legitimate purposes for which the evidence was admissible. The judge explained to which elements he thought the evidence was relevant and that he felt that its probative value outweighed the danger of prejudice. See United States v. Anderson, 933 F.2d 1261, 1269 (5th Cir.1991) (no remand where probative value/prejudice evaluation is readily apparent from the record, and there is no substantial uncertainty about the ruling).

The evidence is specifically relevant to show intent and plan, an element of conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute marijuana. United States v. McKoy, 771 F.2d 1207, 1214 (9th Cir.1985) (admission of prior bad acts relevant to show development of conspiracy); United States v. Nadler, 698 F.2d 995 (9th Cir.1983) (same). ⁵