With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Weaver’s trunk contained 100 pounds, or 40 pounds, or no marijuana. It does not matter whether Weaver drove off with the marijuana and sold it, whether he drove off with it and gave it away, or whether he drove off without it. By agreeing to accept the marijuana in lieu of cash, he admitted his involvement in the conspiracy to distribute marijuana. The only difference between this case and Parker is that Parker committed a substantive offense while Weaver committed an inchoate offense. Because both defendants admitted to all the elements, their prevarications on the details cannot be considered crucial to the question of guilt. Thus, the application of the obstruction of justice enhancement to Weaver constituted clear error. See United States v. Francis, 39 F.3d 803, 811 (7th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). Finally, after all these pages, the

A: holding that we review factual findings underlying a decision to apply a sentencing enhancement for clear error and give due deference to the district courts application of the guidelines to the facts
B: holding that the court will review the report and recommendation for clear error
C: holding that we review for clear error the bankruptcy courts factual findings
D: holding that we review the application of  3c11 enhancements for clear error
D.