With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". contention that the evidence was somehow insufficient to support his conviction on the narcotics conspiracy counts. Gomez told the police after his arrest that the hitmen “were going to ... a spot where (2) kilos and $400 thousand ... were ripped off by these guys. We were going to take these guys[’] beepers and get back the customers these guys had stolen from us. ” For his part, Marmolejas admitted at trial that he thought his job on May 25 was about recovering a stolen beeper from a “street guy who sells drugs.” We find that a rational trier of fact could have found from this arid other evidence that the defendants knew of the narcotics distribution conspiracy, and assisted it by agreeing to commit murder for hire. United States v. McCullah, 76 F.3d 1087, 1104 (10th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). We uphold the convictions on these counts.

A: holding that it was not plain error for the district court to find the police officers identification of a defendant as a member of the fresno bulldogs gang and testimony about the nature and identifying characteristics of the organization including drug distribution were relevant in a drug conspiracy case
B: holding that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find that an oral agreement existed and that it was not modified
C: holding that appellant was deprived of a fair trial where the jury was instructed in such a way that it was not required to find at least two elements of the offense of capital murder to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt
D: holding that it was permissible for the jury to find that the defendants understood that the murder  was not an end in itself but rather was part of the  organizations larger drug distribution operation
D.