With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Campbell still would not be entitled to relief, because the evidence was more than sufficient to sustain the district court’s application of the two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c). The district court adopted the factual findings of the Presentence Investigative Report (“PSR”), which found that Campbell employed Walters to travel from New York City to St. Lawrence County to distribute cocaine on multiple occasions, and that Walters admitted to investigators that Campbell actively sought her out to serve as a courier. Despite Campbell’s denial of these facts, the PSR was sufficient to permit the district court to find that Campbell recruited Walters and, ultimately, to apply the section 3B1.1(c) enhancement. See United States v. Garcia, 413 F.3d 201, 223-24 (2d Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). Campbell is mistaken in contending that the

A: holding that there was a sufficient basis for joinder of seven defendants in a single trial where all the defendants were charged with participation in a single overarching drug conspiracy
B: holding that evidence of defendants recruitment of single drug courier was sufficient to support section 3b11c enhancement
C: holding that unknowing drug courier testimony was admissible in a complex drug importation case
D: holding that because evidence was sufficient to support defendants  1962c convictions and jury could infer from evidence that defendants each manifested an agreement to participate in enterprises affairs evidence was sufficient to support defendants  1962d convictions for rico conspiracy
B.