With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Nelson Orellana was convicted after a bench trial of one count of possession with intent to distribute cocaine and one count of conspiracy. At trial he argued that he had been entrapped by a paid, confidential informant. He appeals, claiming errors at both his trial and his sentencing. Orellana argues that the district court erroneously admitted hearsay testimony from an investigating officer concerning statements made by a confidential informant. Even assuming that the district court erred in admitting this testimony, any error was harmless. The confidential informant testified and was subject to extensive cross examination. See United States v. Makhlouta, 790 F.2d 1400, 1402 (9th Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>). Orellana also argues that the district court

A: holding that a hearsay error was harmless where the essential elements of the testimony were elsewhere properly admitted in evidence
B: holding improperly admitted testimony was cumulative to the other properly admitted evidence and was therefore harmless
C: holding that the rejection of the exculpatory hearsay testimony of a government witness was in error particularly in view that accusatory hearsay was admitted
D: holding that a violation of the hearsay rule was harmless
A.