What is the test for admitting evidence of a defendant's possession of hydriotic acid with intent to manufacture methamphetamine?

Our opinion in United States v. Vizcarra-Martinez, 66 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir.1995) is entirely distinguishable. In that case, evidence of the defendant's possession of a small amount of methamphetamine was introduced to prove the defendant "was aware that hydriotic acid could be transformed into methamphetamine through a complicated manufacturing process." Id. at 1014. The court held that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the evidence because "there exists no logical connection between the knowledge that the defendant might have gained by using methamphetamine and the knowledge ... of the use to which the hydriodic acid in his possession would be put." Id.