With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the purpose of proving the truthfulness of his statement, but for the purpose of rebuttal only.’ ” Id. at 412, 105 S.Ct. 2078. The trial court included a similar limiting instruction in its final instructions to the jury. Id. The Supreme Court concluded that “[t]he nonhearsay aspect of [the co-conspirator’s] confession — not to prove what happened at the murder scene but to prove what happened when [the defendant] confessed — raisefd] no Confrontation Clause concerns.” Id. at 414, 105 S.Ct. 2078 (emphasis in original). Instead, the concern was that the jury might use the co-conspirator’s statement in a manner inconsistent with the Confrontation Clause, i.e., to infer Street’s guilt even though Street had had no opportunity to cross-examine the witness. I . 648, 17 L.Ed.2d 606 (1967) (<HOLDING>); Walder v. United States, 347 U.S. 62, 64, 74

A: holding that statements elicited from a defendant in violation of his miranda rights could be introduced to impeach that defendants credibility when the jury was instructed that the statements were not to be considered as evidence of his guilt
B: holding a sentence enhancement for two prior convictions must be based on separate criminal episodes
C: holding previous convictions can only be used for sentence enhancement purposes under 18 usc  924e1 if the restoration of civil rights regarding such convictions expressly prohibited the possession of firearms
D: holding that evidence of a defendants prior criminal convictions could be introduced for the purpose of sentence enhancement if the jury was instructed that the evidence could not be used for the purposes of determining guilt
D.