With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Ranieri and committed crimes on Ranieri’s behalf, and at his behest. In any event, on cross-examination, Iri-zarry acknowledged that he was friendly with Ranieri, and that Irizarry had obtained legitimate employment for him. However, Irizarry insisted that he had not spoken to Ranieri in about fourteen months. There was nothing improper in this questioning because it directly pertained to charged activities of the enterprise even though Ranieri was not alleged to be a member of it. Moreover, evidence had already been introduced that showed that Irizarry and the enterprise engaged in criminal activities on Ranieri’s behalf. Therefore, it was permissible for the government to inquire into Irizarry’s relationship with Ranieri. Cf. United States v. O’Leary, 739 F.2d 135, 136 (3d Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>). Irizarry also argues that testimony the

A: holding that evidence of prior drug transactions was admissible under rule 404b to show inter alia intent to enter into the drug conspiracy and knowledge of the conspiracy
B: recognizing that even evidence of a defendants and a witnesss prior bad acts was admissible to show inter alia the defendants familiarity with the witness
C: holding prior bad acts evidence is admissible where there is an articulation or identification of the consequential fact to which the proffered evidence of other acts is directed
D: holding on a criminal appeal that prior bad acts evidence is admissible to prove intent to commit the charged crime
B.