With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". ‘the crime charged [in the indictment] was substantially altered at trial, so that it was impossible to know whether the grand jury would have indicted for the crime actually proved.’ ” United States v. Adamson, 291 F.3d 606, 615 (9th Cir.2002) (quoting United States v. Von Stoll, 726 F.2d 584, 586 (9th Cir.1984)). Here, there was no constructive amendment of the indictment. Swaid’s conviction for ITSP was not substantially altered from the charged crime. Nor did the facts, as alleged in the indictment, materially vary from the evidence adduced at trial. The government evidence concerning “Mark Hansen,” another source of stolen merchandise, constituted nothing more than a single divergence and did not result in any material change in the complex of facts. Cf. Von Stoll, 726 F.2d at 587 (<HOLDING>). Thus, there was no constructive amendment of

A: holding that the person who travels as an agent of person defrauded is a victim
B: holding that the identity of a defrauded person under 18 usc  2814 is irrelevant and did not materially alter the complex of facts
C: holding that 18 usc  1919 did not implicitly repeal 18 usc  1001
D: holding for the purposes of 18 usc  924e that being a felon in possession of a firearm is not a violent felony as defined in 18 usc  924e2b
B.