With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". impermissible guilt-by-association evidence by asking the defendant whether he knew a crack-cocaine dealer and if he knew that the dealer was present at the trial). 10 . United States v. Romans, 823 F.3d 299, 311 (5th Cir. 2016) (quotation marks omitted). See also United States v. Gallardo-Trapero, 185 F.3d 307, 317 (5th Cir. 1999) (''[I]n meeting its burden, the government may rely on circumstantial the same because "even excluding [the agent’s] impermissible testimony, there is still extensive evidence that [the defendant] knew about the drugs....”). 16 . United States v. Lowery, 135 F.3d 957, 959 (5th Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (quoting Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 776, 66 S.Ct. 1239, 90 L.Ed. 1557 (1946)). 17 . See United States v. Winn, 948 F.2d 145, 159 (5th Cir. 1991) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Covarrubia, 52 F.3d 1068

A: holding that admission of a summary chart was harmless because it was clear that the summary did not mislead the jury and the evidence introduced at trial was more than sufficient to prove the elements as to each defendant
B: holding that new evidence must be evidence that is not merely cumulative
C: holding error in admission of evidence is harmless when it was merely cumulative to other evidence in the record
D: holding that improper use of a summary chart was harmless because the evidence was merely cumulative and there was overwhelming evidence of the charged crime
D.