With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to the continuing offense theory of the crime. Under Taylor, therefore, Garcia-Caraveo’s conviction for robbery in California was for a “crime of violence,” and the district court’s imposition of a sixteen-point increase in his offense level was not error. C. Even if California’s Robbery Statute is Broader Than the Uniform Generic Definition of Robbery, Garcia-Caraveo has Failed to Show Plain Error Had the sentencing court committed error in applying the sixteen-level increase in U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, Garcia-Caraveo cannot demonstrate that that error would be plain. Drawing every conceivable inference in Garcia-Caraveo’s favor, at best he can point only to some uncertainty as to the breadth of California Penal Code § 211, as compared to generic robbery. See Juarez-Galvan, 572 F.3d at 1161 (<HOLDING>). Where there is uncertainty in the law, we

A: holding that because of unsettled case law district courts error was not obvious and therefore not plain
B: holding that any error was harmless and thus not plain error
C: holding that omission was not plain error
D: holding that the district courts conclusion that  211 is not broader than generic robbery was not plain error
D.