With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". cites Albrecht v. Horn, arguing that Adamson's failure to object to the admission of the accomplice statements mandates that we review for plain error and determine if the lack of a limiting instruction "infected the entire trial with unfairness.” 485 F.3d 103, 129 (3d Cir.2007). Albrecht involved a due process challenge to the lack of a limiting instruction for the use of prior bad acts evidence as propensity evidence. Here, Adamson does not expressly challenge his conviction on due process grounds. We note, however, that the requirements for plain error are met: an obvious error was committed, it affected Adamson's substantial right to confront witnesses against him, and it seriously affected the fairness of his trial. See United States v. Lessner, 498 F.3d 185, 192 (3d Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). 12 . In closing, the prosecutor argued to the

A: holding that failure to charge drug quantity in the indictment and submit it to the jury seriously affects the fairness integrity and public reputation of judicial proceedings so that the court should exerciseits discretion to recognize the error
B: holding that plain error exists when 1 an error was committed 2 that was plain 3 that affected the defendants substantial rights and 4 the error seriously affects the fairness integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings
C: holding that even if a defendant is able to show that there was a plain error that affected his substantial rights a court of appeals is not required to reverse a conviction unless it finds that the error seriously affected the fairness integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings
D: holding that plain error will be identified only if 1 there is error 2 that is clear or obvious rather than subject to reasonable dispute 3 that affects defendants substantial rights and 4 that seriously impugns fairness integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings
B.