With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". However, even if we were looking at the prejudice issue from that perspective, Nappi could not demonstrate prejudice in any event. As we explain in the text, the information in the state PSI was largely cumulative, and there was a sufficient basis for the Court's sentence based on the factual information already found in the federal PSI. 13 . See also United States v. Moore, 958 F.2d 646, 651 (5th Cir.1992) (rejecting argument that court violated Rule 32 in considering confidential information in sentencing defendant without providing an opportunity to comment; court noted that defendant did not object below and that "[ejven in these proceedings, there is no claim made that the trial judge's information was inaccurate”); United States v. George, 911 F.2d 1028, 1029-30 (5th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>); United States v. DeBardeleben, 740 F.2d 440,

A: holding that the defendant did not require advance notice where he could not show how he was prejudiced by late notice or how he could have been helped by additional notice
B: holding that notice to counsel may be waived
C: holding that district court complied with former rule 32a1 where court asked counsel during sentencing hearing whether circumstances warranted upward departure and counsel responded court rejected defendants argument that notice provided was insufficient and stated that defendant has not shown how he was prejudiced by this notice given how he could have been helped by additional notice or time
D: holding that joness application was insufficient because it did not indicate how communication with counsel would have affected trial or how he would have proceeded differently
C.