With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". by a three-year term of supervised release. We assume familiarity by the parties with the facts, procedural history and appellate issues of the case. Yarbrough argues that the facts underlying the various enhancements imposed on his sentence as calculated under the United States Sentencing Guidelines (“Guidelines”) were not proven by a preponderance of the evidence. First, Yarbrough maintains that the district court erroneously enhanced his sentence by two levels pursuant to § 2K2.1(a)(6)(A) of the Guidelines because the evidence relied on by the district court did not establish that his drug use of marijuana was “ongoing and contemporaneous” with the commission of the charged crime of possession of firearms. See United States v. Nevarez, 251 F.3d 28, 30 (2d Cir.2001) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). We disagree with Yarbrough’s contention

A: holding that possession of listed chemical with intent to manufacture controlled substance is controlled substance offense
B: holding that to qualify as a prohibited person under 18 usc  922g3 as incorporated by ussg  2k21a6 cmt n 6 2003 a defendants unlawful use of a controlled substance must be ongoing and contemporaneous with the commission of the offense
C: recognizing that the terms controlled substance offense and drug trafficking offense have nearly identical ussg definitions and using past decisions interpreting drug trafficking offense to analyze a challenge involving a controlled substance offense because the issues raised in those past decisions were closely analogous to the issue in the present case
D: holding that quantity of the controlled substance does not have to be measurable to support a conviction for possession of such controlled substance particularly when the immeasurable amount of the substance is found on an implement used to consume the substance
B.