With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". who had no idea that they were even dealing with sexually explicit material.” Id. at 69, 115 S.Ct. 464. For similar reasons, this court held in Nofziger that, to prove a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 207(c), the government had to show not only that the former government official knowingly communicated with his former agency, but that he also knew the agency had "a direct and substantial interest” in the matter. 878 F.2d at 443 (quoting the statute). Otherwise, we explained, if the "ex-official tries to interest his former agency in a particular project in the mistaken belief that it had no 'direct and substantial interest' in it, he will have committed a felony.” Id. at 444 (emphasis omitted); see also Flores-Figueroa v. United States, - U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 1886, 1888, 173 L.Ed.2d 853 (2009) (<HOLDING>); Liparota, 471 U.S. at 433, 105 S.Ct. 2084

A: holding that a defendants use of a persons name and social security number without permission constituted the use of a means of identification without lawful authority
B: holding that 18 usc  1028aal which makes it an aggravated crime to knowingly transfer  without lawful authority a means of identification of another person requires proof that the defendant not only knowingly transferred something but that he knew it was a means of identification and that it belonged to another person
C: holding that a person violates the bank fraud statute when he knowingly executes a scheme to obtain money from a financial institution by means of false or fraudulent representations if a defendant knowingly provided materially false information in order to induce the loan the crime is complete and it is irrelevant whether or not he intended to repay or was capable of repaying it
D: holding that a federal criminal statute forbidding aggravated identity theft that enhances the criminal penalty when the offender knowingly transfers possesses or uses without lawful authority a means of identification of another person requires the government to show that the defendant knew that the means of identification he or she unlawfully transferred possessed or used in fact belonged to another person quoting 18 usc  1028aa1 internal quotation marks omitted
B.