With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". [the court] why the district court erred” and, indeed, could not. “respond to the district court’s decision, since each section [was] directly copied and pasted, essentially word for word from”'the underlying filings). Lanier also asserts that the question violated the Confrontation Clause because it assumed facts not in,evidence thus transforming the prosecutor into an unconfronted fact witness. When combined with a witness’s testimony, the questions of a prosecutor designed to introduce testimony about out-of-court testimony that would otherwise be inadmissible hearsay, can violate the Confrontation Clause. United States v. Kizzee, No. 16-20397, 877 F.3d 650, 655-56, 2017 WL 6398243, at *3 (5th Cir. Dec. 15, 2017). But see United States v. Solis, 299 F.3d 420, 442 (5th Cir. 2002) (<HOLDING>). Here, the prosecutor’s questioning was not

A: holding appellate court erred in reversing conviction on confrontation clause grounds because appellant did not clearly articulate to trial court that confrontation clause demanded admission of evidence in question
B: holding that hearsay argument for admission of evidence did not preserve confrontation clause challenge on appeal argument could have referred either to rules of evidence or confrontation clause but failed to identify confrontation clause as basis and thus did not put trial court on notice of issue
C: holding that because closing arguments do not constitute evidence a prosecutors statement did not implicate the confrontation clause
D: holding that admission of statement with references to we or they which did not directly implicate defendant did not violate defendants confrontation rights
C.