With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Corp., 191 F.3d 1010, 1016 (9th Cir.1999) (reviewing evi-dentiary ruling for plain error where party failed to raise the objection at trial). Under any standard, however, the evidence was not unduly prejudicial because the risk of jury confusion concerning the evidence was low, the evidence was straightforward and the time period of the evidence was made clear. Finally, the district court judge did not engage in judicial misconduct at trial. A new trial based on judicial misconduct is warranted only if, from the record, a judge’s action “shows actual bias or leaves an abiding impression that the jury perceived an appearance of advocacy or partiality.” United States v. Laurins, 857 F.2d 529, 537 (9th Cir.1988); see Shad v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 799 F.2d 525, 531 (9th Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>). Although the district court judge interrupted

A: holding that affidavit from a new witness was not newly discovered evidence because trial counsel knew of the existence of the witness before trial trial counsel with due diligence could have discovered the evidence
B: holding that judge presiding at trial may not testify in that trial as witness
C: holding that prejudice existed when an attorney was both the trial counsel and a necessary witness
D: holding that trial judges conduct was not improper when judge questioned witness criticized counsel and managed the pace of the trial
D.