With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". waive” the alleged error). We discern no plain error. Viewed in context of the entire trial, see United States v. Christians, 200 F.3d 1124, 1128 (8th Cir.1999), it is not clear or obvious that the prosecutor was commenting indi rectly on Kieffer’s failure to testify. Kieffer was attempting to convince the jury that the Ninth Circuit’s decision to admit Kieffer to practice somehow relieved Kieffer of responsibility for his own deceitful conduct. In stating Kieffer was “not accepting ... responsibility,” the prosecutor apparently was rebutting Kieffer’s defense. The prosecutor probably was deflecting Kieffer’s attempt to shift blame, emphasizing the District of North Dakota’s attorney admission system was based on trust and the jury should not “lose sight of who is on trial.” Cf. id. (<HOLDING>). 3. Sufficiency of the Evidence Kieffer argues

A: holding the prosecutors statement there was no contradictory evidence to those facts was only a general observation about the strength and clarity of the governments evidence presented at trial and not grounds for plain error relief for alleged prosecutorial misconduct
B: holding that prosecutorial misconduct was harmless in the face of overwhelming evidence of guilt
C: holding that evidence consisting of the testimony of three witnesses who each had motives to lie was not overwhelming and that prosecutorial misconduct therefore was not harmless error
D: holding that prosecutors reference to the fact that not one white witness has produced contradictory evidence was plain error
A.