With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". out, however, that the jury convicted him of violating 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B)(iii), which requires a showing of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt for possession with intent to distribute more than five grams of cocaine base. The only evidence with respect to the 625 grams of crack at issue is the testifying probation officer’s discussion with Jackson who testified directly at trial only with respect to one-half ounce (approximately fourteen grams) of crack. The probation officer does not appear to discuss at the sentencing hearing how Jackson came up with the figure of 125 grams of crack per week in July of 1993, nor does the presentence investigation report provide any further basis. See J.A. at 2128 (PSR at ¶ 82). See also United States v. Frazier, 89 F.3d 1501, 1506 (11th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied sub nom. Hutchinson, 520 U.S.

A: holding that evidence supported conspiracy with an unnamed drug supplier where inter alia defendant purchased wholesale quantities of drugs from the supplier
B: holding that an indictment that referred to wholesale quantities of cocaine and cocaine base was sufficiently broad to include the specific quantities of drugs actually found by the jury
C: holding that a defendant can only be sentenced for misprision of felony based on drug quantities that he knew or should have known or foreseen  were involved in the conspiracy
D: holding that extrapolation of drug quantities from general evidence of selling quantities and periods of time is insufficient for sentencing without more specific evidence of the number of transactions and quantities of drug involved
D.