With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". had been taken over by Jamaicans, thereby suggesting that it was more likely that the defendant was guilty of the drug sales with which he had been charged. Although the government argued that these references were “fleeting” and “insignificant,” the Court concluded that the “fairness, integrity [and] public reputation of judicial proceedings” were “seriously affected.” Id. at 26. Similarly, in United States v. Cabrera, 222 F.3d 590 (9th Cir.2000), the Court found that the government’s references to the drug market falling under the control of Cuban dealers, its suggestion that the Cubans were flight risks, and its description of how Cubans tended to package their drugs, were plain error where defendant was also Cuban. See also Withers v. United States, 602 F.2d 124, 125 (6th Cir.1979)(<HOLDING>). While we find the government’s mention of

A: holding that prosecutors reference to the fact that not one white witness has produced contradictory evidence was plain error
B: holding prosecutors reference to defendant being only witness in courtroom during testimony as tailoring opportunity not plain error
C: holding that prosecutors reference to cooperation agreements with government witnesses was not plain error
D: holding that prosecutors reference to code of silence among witnesses to shooting not plain error where argument finds support in record
A.