With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". was established in this circuit that a constructive amendment required reversal, even under plain error review. See Olson, 925 F.2d at 1175 (“[A constructive] amendment always requires reversal because it deprives a defendant of his right to be tried on the grand jury’s charge.”); United States v. Solis, 841 F.2d 307, 309 (9th Cir.1988) (same); United States v. Pazsint, 703 F.2d 420, 424 (9th Cir.1983) (same). However, in United States v. Shipsey, 190 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir.1999), we stated that “fw]e have not had occasion to determine whether reversal is always required after United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 735, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993), which recognizes more discretion for courts reviewing for plain error.” Id. at 1087; see also Olano, 507 U.S. at 735, 113 S.Ct. 1770 (<HOLDING>). . In Shipsey, we found it unnecessary to

A: holding that plain error exists when 1 an error was committed 2 that was plain 3 that affected the defendants substantial rights and 4 the error seriously affects the fairness integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings
B: holding that even if a defendant is able to show that there was a plain error that affected his substantial rights a court of appeals is not required to reverse a conviction unless it finds that the error seriously affected the fairness integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings
C: holding that a plain error did not seriously affect the fairness integrity or public reputation of the judicial proceedings even though the error was assumed to have affected substantial rights
D: recognizing that plain error analysis requires 1 error 2 that is plain 3 that affects defendants substantial rights and 4 that seriously affects fairness integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings
B.