With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". and gave no distinct reasons for objecting to the court’s failure to include the multiple conspiracy instruction. A general objection to district court jury instructions is insufficient to preserve a specific claim. Fed.R.Crim.P. 30 states: No party may assign as error any portion of the charge or omission therefrom unless that party objects thereto before the jury retires to consider its verdict, stating distinctly the matter to which that party objects and the grounds of the objection. This rule clearly indicates that a specific objection must be made with regard to charge requests. See United States v. Friedman, 854 F.2d 535, 555 (2d Cir.1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1004, 109 S.Ct. 1637, 104 L.Ed.2d 153 (1989); United States v. Martinez, 776 F.2d 1481, 1484 (10th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>). The defendants in this case have failed to

A: holding that to preserve an alleged error in the admission of evidence a timely objection must be made to the introduction of the evidence specific grounds for the objection should be stated and a ruling on the objection must be made by the trial court
B: holding that objection to instructions by codefendants counsel is sufficient to preserve any error
C: holding that the objection both instructions fit this case and should be given is inadequate to preserve issue
D: holding a contemporaneous objection is required to preserve an issue for appellate review
C.