With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 606 F.2d 149 (6th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1074, 100 S.Ct. 1020, 62 L.Ed.2d 756 (1980); United States v. Trotter, 529 F.2d 806 (3d Cir.1976). Lowell’s contentions that there was insufficient evidence in this record to establish his leading part in the conspiracy and his involvement in the substantive counts related to fraud border on the frivolous. May, Lowell’s wife, contends that while she may have told customers that their buildings could not be delivered for false reasons, she had no part in the fraudulent scheme except to type documents as directed by her husband. She argues that her convictions should be reversed because she falls within the holding of United States v. Price, 623 F.2d 587 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1016, 101 S.Ct. 577, 66 L.Ed.2d 475 (1980) (<HOLDING>). She relies also on United States v. Wrehe,

A: holding that a wife is not liable simply by virtue of the marital relationship for her husbands fraudulent acts
B: holding that the former wife did not waive her attorneyclient privilege simply because the credibility of her claim that she relied on her husbands representations could be impeached by deposing her former attorney
C: holding the test for foreseeability is whether the wife knew or should have known of her husbands proclivities
D: holding that a wifes minimal involvement in her husbands business coupled with the lack of evidence that she knew of or intended to further her husbands fraudulent schemes was insufficient evidence of conspiracy
D.