With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". which is not satisfied merely by pointing to a ‘negative spill-over effect from damaging evidence presented against codefendants.’ “ (quoting United States v. Wacker, 72 F.3d 1453, 1468 (10th Cir. 1995))); Hack, 782 F.2d at 871 (“[A] mere disparity in the evidence from a quantitative standpoint against each defendant in a conspiracy case, without more, provides no justification for severance.”). Mr. Wardell’s prosecution did not constitute an extraordinary instance where prejudice would have been manifested from evidentiary and culpability disparities. Mr. Wardell was charged with the same offenses — conspiracy any spill-over prejudice. The district court instructed the jury to give separate and individual consideration to each charge against each defendant. See Hack, 782 F.2d at 871 (<HOLDING>). Although Mr. Wardell complains that the jury

A: holding that a jury is presumed to heed the district courts instruction to disregard the fact that the defendants were held in contempt and admonished before the jury
B: holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendants request for severance because the district court nullified any prejudicial error when it repeatedly admonished the jury throughout the trial to consider the evidence only against the defendant to whom it related and at the end of trial gave the jury instructions that admonished the jury to consider separately each offense and evidence in support of each offense
C: holding that improper statement was rendered harmless because the district court sustained the defendants objection  and admonished the jury to disregard the statement
D: holding that district court did not abuse discretion in denying motion for new trial because nonmovant presented sufficient evidence at trial for the district court to conclude that the outcome was not against the great weight of the evidence so as to constitute a miscarriage of justice
B.