With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Nogueira’s own testimony, that, as required under § 3B1.4, Gerald took multiple affirmative acts to involve No-gueira in the crime, such that Nogueira’s involvement was directly foreseeable to Gerald. See id. at 1288 (emphasizing foreseeability). Specifically, Gerald used and directed Nogueira to schedule the meetings at the church, pass out information to the applicants, translate for her during multiple meetings at Bethel Christian Church, complete falsified residency letters (including translated letters), and arrange meetings. Gerald also paid No-gueira $100 to create a flyer that promoted Gerald’s “immigration consulting” services and provided Gerald’s contact information. Nogueira helped Gerald in her scheme and was not merely present during the offense. Taber, 497 F.3d at 1181 (<HOLDING>). Certainly, Nogueira’s actions furthered

A: holding that defendants affirmative acts of driving minor to robbery helping minor enter the building and serving as a lookout for the minor warranted sentencing enhancement
B: holding that because minor defendant was mandatorily sentenced to life imprisonment without parole and because his case was still pending on direct appeal when miller was released the minor defendant was entitled to a new sentencing hearing
C: holding that reasonable attorneys fees for the benefit of a minor in defending the minor against a criminal charge were necessaries
D: holding that the new york misdemeanor offense of sexual abuse of a minor constitutes an aggravated felony under ina  101a43asexual abuse of a minor
A.