Castillo

MEMORANDUM **

Nicholas Castillo appeals his conviction for possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. Castillo contends that the district court’s admission of evidence regarding a prior negotiation to sell methamphetamine was improper under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) because (1) it did not prove a material point; (2) it was too remote in time; (3) it was not similar to the offense charged; and (4) the prejudicial effects of the prior act evidence outweighed its probative value. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

Evidence may be admitted under Rule 404(b) if: “(1) the evidence tends to prove a material point; (2) the other act is not too remote in time; (3) the evidence is sufficient to support a finding that defendant committed the other act; and (4) (in certain cases) the act is similar to the offense charged.” United States v. Romero, 282 F.3d 683, 688 (9th Cir.2002). If the prior act evidence meets this test, we then evaluate whether the probative value of *217 the evidence is substantially outweighed by its prejudicial impact under Federal Rule of Evidence…