Flores

MEMORANDUM *

Ruben Rosales Flores appeals his conviction and sentence for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, and conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a)(1) and 846. We affirm. Because the facts are familiar to the parties, we recount them only as necessary to explain our decision.

1. The district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence of Flores’ role in the unconsummated cocaine transaction. Flores denied that he had *705 knowledge of, or intent to commit, the charged offenses concerning the sale of methamphetamine. The numerous similarities between the attempted cocaine sale and the methamphetamine sale tend to prove that Flores was aware of the nature of the second transaction. United States v. Mayans, 17 F.3d 1174, 1181 (9th Cir. 1994). As we recently explained, “Rule 404(b) is a rule of inclusion. Unless the evidence of other crimes tends only to prove propensity, it is admissible.” United States v. Rrapi, 175 F.3d 742, 748 (9th Cir.1999) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

2. Nor did the district court err by imposing a two-level sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice…