With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Defendant believed that he had permission to reenter the United States, including the facts that Defendant readily handed over the card without displaying nervousness and that the green card appeared to border agents to be valid and unaltered. See United States v. Garcia-Cruz, 978 F.2d 537, 540 (9th Cir.1992) (stating that we review for abuse of discretion whether there is some foundation in the evidence for a defendant’s proposed instruction). But Defendant’s theory of defense was adequately covered by the instructions given. See United States v. Bello-Bahena, 411 F.3d 1083, 1088-89 (9th Cir.2005) (explaining that we review de novo whether the district court’s instructions adequately cover the theory of defense); United States v. Martinez-Martinez, 369 F.3d 1076, 1083 (9th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). Specifically, Instruction 12 correctly told

A: holding that the jury need not agree on the theory supporting the conviction if there is sufficient evidence to support either theory
B: holding that plaintiffs are ordinarily entitled to instructions consonant with their theory of the case where evidentiary support for the theory exists
C: holding that it is not reversible error to reject a defendants proposed instruction on his theory of the ease if other instructions adequately cover the defense theory internal quotation marks omitted
D: holding that an error is harmless if it was inconsequential to the ultimate nondisability determination internal quotation marks omitted
C.