With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Nolasco frequently looking out a window at 15 Bradford Street, apparently acting as a lookout. These facts, in addition to the testimony of Zieba, would easily allow “[a]ny rational trier of fact” to conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that No-lasco knowingly aided in the distribution of cocaine. Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781; accord Mass.Gen.L. ch. 93C, § 32E(b)(3). Moreover, the fact that Nolasco was not present during the transfer of drugs to the officer is of little consequence to this analysis. See Commonwealth v. Lafayette, 40 Mass.App.Ct. 534, 537, 665 N.E.2d 1025 (1996) (concluding that there is no need for a defendant to be present at the scene of a crime throughout its occurrence); cf. Commonwealth v. Carmenatty, 37 Mass. App.Ct. 908, 910, 638 N.E.2d 496 (1994) (<HOLDING>). Because his role as a joint venturer has been

A: holding that the government had established that the presence of weapons was reasonably foreseeable to the defendant during his drug dealing where officers discovered handguns in residence where defendant kept cocaine base and drug paraphernalia
B: holding anonymous tip that someone at the residence was dealing drugs did not amount to anything the tip was never substantiated and none of the occupants were ever charged with drug dealing
C: holding that apprendi is not implicated where the defendant has stipulated to the amount of drugs for which he was held responsible and the district court did not rely on any fact outside of the plea agreement to determine drug quantity at sentencing
D: holding that the fact that the defendant did not handle the drugs is not dispositive of his involvement in drug dealing
D.