With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". § 3B1.1(c), two levels are added. PSR ¶ 45 (emphasis added). As McCoy correctly notes, however, supervision of an unwitting individual cannot justify an enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c). The guideline commentary requires supervision of one or more “participants,” and a “participant” is defined as a person who, although not necessarily convicted, “is criminally responsible for the commission of the offense.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1, comment., n.1. Because an individual cannot be criminally responsible for making a false statement unless she is witting, see 18 U.S.C. § 1014 (requiring that false statement be made “knowingly”), the fact that McCoy’s employees were unwitting would appear to render this enhancement inapplicable. See United States v. Bapack, 129 F.3d 1320, 1325 (D.C.Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). The government does not dispute this reading

A: holding that the prosecution must present sufficient evidence to support a reasonable belief that defendant committed a crime emphasis added
B: holding that a person is criminally responsible under  3b11 only if he commitfs all of the elements of a statutory crime with the requisite mens rea internal quotations omitted emphasis added
C: holding that if a crime is broadly defined the court can look beyond the elements of the crime
D: holding that an application is  pending from the time it is first filed  emphasis added
B.