With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". See United States v. Garcia, 413 F.3d 201, 210 (2d Cir.2005) (error harmless unless evidentiary ruling had a “substantial and injurious effect or influence” on the jury’s verdict) (quoting United States v. Dukagjini, 326 F.3d 45, 62 (2d Cir.2003)). We also reject Williams’ claims that the district court impermissibly precluded him from arguing to the jury during summation that the government failed to meet its burden of proving alienage insofar as it failed to definitively rule out the possibility that Williams had derived citizenship. Given that the evidence before the jury was insufficient to support any claim of derivative citizenship, the district court did not abuse its discretion in precluding this line of argument. See United States v. Bautista, 252 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). In any event, any error was, again, harmless.

A: recognizing that a lawyers comments during closing argument may explain away the alleged prejudicial effect of the opposing parties closing argument comments
B: holding on habeas review that counsels failure to object to improper argument at trial did not prejudice petitioner where other evidence supported a guilty verdict and the jury was told closing argument was not evidence
C: holding that trial court properly prohibited an argument at closing that was not based on facts in the record and could have effect of confusing the jury
D: holding that the movant was not entitled to new trial under rule 59 based on a defense which if properly placed in issue would have affected the course of the jury trial
C.