With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of a kilogram of heroin in the eight years between 2000 and 2008 appears to have ranged from $60,000 to roughly $100,000. See United States v. Aina-Marshall, 336 F.3d 167, 169 (2d Cir.2003); United States v. Azubike, 564 F.3d 59, 61 (1st Cir.2009). We assume that district judges in this circuit, who handle large numbers of wholesale-quantity drug cases each year, are familiar with these prices and require no further evidence unless the point is challenged. In short, because Nino admitted trafficking in a quantity of heroin with a wholesale value at least in the high six figures, that admission by itself provided a sufficient factual basis to support a preponderance finding that the proceeds realized by the conspiracy were at least $100,000. See United States v. Treacy, 639 F.3d at 48 (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Benevento, 836 F.2d

A: holding that it may not
B: holding that the district court properly exercised jurisdiction over a criminal forfeiture action where a state court in a related state court forfeiture proceeding had in personam jurisdiction over the same currency subject to forfeiture
C: holding that double jeopardy clause did not apply to forfeiture proceeding before the court
D: holding that forfeiture calculation is not exact science and that district court may make reasonable extrapolations from evidence
D.