With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Nevertheless, the terms of the search warrant were not contravened by the seizure of the pellet gun. This gun was not seized in an indiscriminate manner, but with ample reason to believe that, in these circumstances, it was of the same ilk as the other weapons discovered in the Division Street arsenal. Furthermore, our review of the pertinent facts compels the conclusion that the district court did not err in finding that the other unspecified items were also properly seized. For example, the gas and electric bill, the refund notice, and the operator’s license constitute evidence linking Wardrick to the premises where the illegal firearms were found. See Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 87 S.Ct. 1642, 18 L.Ed.2d 782 (1967); see also United States v. Williams, 623 F.2d 535 (8th Cir.1980) (<HOLDING>). Likewise, the holsters were properly seized—

A: holding seizure of plumbing bill proper where search warrant described cocaine and heroin because bill constituted mere evidence showing that defendant occupied premises where drugs found
B: holding that search of backpack constituted a search of defendants person and was not authorized by search warrant for premises
C: holding that under a warrant for seizure of cocaine police were authorized to search through notebooks or any other items in which drugs might be concealed
D: holding evidence insufficient to establish defendant had physical or constructive possession of heroin when no drugs were found on his person and the only drugs discovered on the premises which he shared with the codefendant were secreted out of plain view
A.