With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Cir.2008); United States v. Williams, 53 F.3d 769, 772 (6th Cir. 1995). Here, we do not have a circuit split and thus cases on both sides. Instead, we have six circuits on the government’s side, none on the defendant’s side, and dicta from our circuit on the government’s side. If a circuit split bars a finding of plain error, a 6-0 score in the government’s favor, buttressed by dicta from this circuit in the government’s favor, certainly bars plain error. Therefore, even if we assume, contrary to our fellow circuits, that the statute requires proof of proximate cause, and even if we further assume that one heroin addict’s failure to seek medical treatment on behalf of another addict could have been a superseding cause, cf. United States v. Rodriguez, 279 F.3d 947, 951 (11th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>), Atkins’s claim fails because he cannot prove

A: holding that it is not
B: holding it is a question of fact
C: holding that it may not
D: holding that it is not necessary to ascertain whether a plan is tax qualified but only that it is covered by erisa
A.