With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". in excluding testimony from Defendant about a particular conversation he had with Colon. The prior testimony was that Defendant and Colon had met, not that they had a particular conversation. The district court properly excluded the testimony as irrelevant. See United States v. Gonzalez-Rincon, 36 F.3d 859, 866 (9th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). 4. Because any error that occurred in this

A: holding that the appeals court may affirm the ruling of the district court on any basis which the record supports
B: holding that an appellate court can affirm a district courts order on any basis for which there is a record sufficient to permit conclusions of law including grounds upon which the district court did not rely
C: recognizing this court may affirm for any reason supported by the record
D: recognizing that this court may affirm on any ground supported by the record even if it differs from the reasoning of the district court
A.