With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". injury directly caused by Rebol-lar's reckless driving. See United States v. Bonetti, 277 F.3d 441, 447 (4th Cir.2002) (affirming jury trial conviction, under Pinkerton, where the prosecution charged the defendant with a substantive count of harboring an unlawful alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii), and then presented sufficient evidence that the defendant, as a conspirator, was liable for the serious bodily injury directly caused by his wife). 7 . Alvarado-Casas suggests that because we have yet to uphold a conviction for aggravated alien smuggling against a factual basis challenge where, as here, the defendant was not the direct or immediate causer of the serious bodily injury, the district court’s error is clear and obvious, citing Garcia-Pautin, 627 F.3d at 132 (<HOLDING>). Although the absence of precedent is relevant

A: holding that notice to an alien at the most recent address provided by the alien is legally sufficient
B: holding that  1324a2 requires the mens rea of knowingly bringing an alien to the united states
C: holding that district courts acceptance of a defendants guilty plea to bringing an unlawful alien into the united states under 8 usc  1324alai was plain error in part because the defendant did not accompany or arrange to have a person accompany the alien across the border and we have found no case where a defendant has been convicted under clause i of this statute for bringing an alien into the united states except where the defendant accompanied or arranged to have the alien accompanied as in a smuggling operation across the border
D: holding that the phrase resident alien means an alien lawfully residing in the united states
C.