With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". After a bench trial, the district court again held that the Government had not shown the necessary connection between Lot 1 and the criminal activity, and entered final judgment in favor of Howerin. Both parties appeal. II. We begin with the Government’s appeal. The Government argues that Lot 1 and Lot 56 were a single piece of property, and thus the entire property should have been forfeited. We agree. The dispute in this case centers on the proper interpretation of 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(7), which states that “[a]ll real property ... which is used, or intended to be used, in any manner or part, to commit, or to facilitate the commission of, a violation of this subchapter” shall be subject to forfeiture. The Government contends that the word “property” in the statute should th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). Howerin’s position is supported by the Second

A: holding that plaintiffs may have a property interest in real property
B: holding that with respect to civil forfeiture actions property issues concerning ownership are governed by the laws of the state in which the property is located
C: holding that scope of property subject to forfeiture is defined by the instrument creating an interest in the property
D: holding that the nature of the taxpayers legal interest in the subject property is determined by reference to state law
C.