With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". F.3d 1214, 1226 (11th Cir.2010). Agent John Solek testified at trial that the 1-213 form is “a basic Border Patrol arrest form.” According to Watson, the 1-213 forms were testimonial hearsay. As such, Watson says, the admission of those forms violated both his Confrontation Clause rights and the rules of evidence because the United States did not demonstrate that the declarants were unavailable to testify. Watson objected to the forms only on hearsay grounds at trial, and so we review his Confrontation Clause argument for plain error. See United States v. Arbo-laez, 450 F.3d 1283, 1291 & n. 8 (11th Cir.2006). Watson, however, does not frame his constitutional argument under the plain-error standards. See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 734, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993) (<HOLDING>). And, as Watson acknowledges, Caraballo held

A: holding that the defendant bears the burden of proving outside contact with the jury
B: holding that the defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that the action should be transferred
C: holding that the defendant bears the burden under plainerror review
D: holding that plainerror review applies where the defendant fails to object to a constructive amendment
C.