With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". No other explanation is found in the record. The court, for example, did not make a specific determination of when Orlando entered the conspiracy, nor did it indicate “the scope of the criminal activity [Orlando] agreed to jointly undertake.” U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § IB 1.3, cmt. n. 2. This failure to make specific findings to justify holding Orlando accountable for $449,000 of laundered money is even more apparent in comparison with the court’s disposition of Daniels’s objections to her PSR. The court included the factual determinations that it made at Daniels’s sentencing hearing in the findings that it prepared in response to her objections pursuant to Rule 32(c)(1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Although the government contends that the di (6th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). The government’s focus on the evidence

A: holding a proffer of testimony is required to preserve the issue of whether testimony was properly excluded by the trial judge and an appellate court will not consider error alleged in the exclusion of testimony unless the record on appeal shows fairly what the excluded testimony would have been
B: holding that the admission of expert testimony was prejudicial where the testimony was pervasive
C: holding that the district court complied with the requirements of  lb13alb where it made specific references to testimony in the record relating to the scope of the defendants involvement in the drug trafficking conspiracy noted that the relevant testimony was unrefuted and stated that the testimony was internally consistent
D: holding that the district court committed prejudicial error in admitting expert testimony about the structure of drug trafficking organizations because the testimony portrayed the defendant as a member of such an organization and implied the defendant knew the drugs were in his vehicle
C.