With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". made under oath and inconsistent with his trial testimony. “[P]rior inconsistent statements by a witness are not hearsay and are competent as substantive evidence if the declarant testifies at trial and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement, and the prior inconsistent statement was given under oath at a ‘trial, hearing, or other proceeding.’” United States v. Wilson, 806 F.2d 171, 175-76 (8th Cir.1986) (quoting Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(1)(A)). In Wilson, we held a prior inconsistent statement given by a witness under oath during a grand jury proceeding could be used as substantive evidence. Id. This same rationale applies to other statements made under oath, including a statement made at a plea colloquy. See United States v. Meza-Urtado, 351 F.3d 301, 303 (7th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). Cervantes contends the district court erred

A: holding that in the absence of clear and convincing evidence to the contrary a defendant is bound by statements made under oath during his plea colloquy
B: holding that when the courts oral statements in the plea colloquy conflict with the written agreement the courts oral statements control
C: recognizing a presumption that a plea of guilty is final and binding if the plea was made during a properly conducted hearing pursuant to rule 11 of the federal rules of criminal procedure
D: holding sworn statements made during a codefendants plea colloquy were properly received as substantive evidence pursuant to fedrevid 801d1a
D.