With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". were construed by reference to the attached affidavit. Although there is no dispute that the affidavit was presented to each magistrate and attached to each warrant) Pindell contends that we may not use it to limit the warrant because the only mention of the affidavit on the warrant’s face was in preprinted "boilerplate.” In support, he cites United States v. Maxwell, in which this circuit held that "in order for an affidavit to be viewed as limiting the scope of a warrant, the warrant must ... contain 'suitable words of reference’ evidencing the magistrate's explicit inten 20 (1st Cir. 1999); United States v. Corral, 970 F.2d 719, 724 (10th Cir.1992); United States v. Rutkowski, 877 F.2d 139, 142-43 (1st Cir. 1989). 7 . See United States v. Rhodes, 779 F.2d 1019, 1032 (4th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Hillyard, 677 F.2d 1336,

A: holding that the seizure of a notebook containing names numbers and figures during the execution of a warrant for marijuana was justified by the plain view exception in light of the officers knowledge that drug dealers customarily kept records of their drug dealings
B: holding prior drug deals admissible to prove knowledge of the drug trade
C: holding that the government had established that the presence of weapons was reasonably foreseeable to the defendant during his drug dealing where officers discovered handguns in residence where defendant kept cocaine base and drug paraphernalia
D: holding seizure of evidence in plain view reasonable under fourth amendment
A.