With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 1. Defendant argues that the district court erred in not granting him a mistrial after it allowed the government to question Jose Colon-Maldonado (Colon) about the charged conspiracy. The court gave a curative instruction after the evidence was wrongfully admitted, and the fact that the jury acquitted Defendant of Counts One and Two indicates that the jury followed the instruction. See United States v. Alvarez, 358 F.3d 1194, 1206 (9th Cir.2004). 2. After the rebuttal witnesses testified, the trial court gave a curative instruction directing the jury to disregard the testimony. There is no evidence in the record that the curative instruction failed to alleviate any prejudice to the Defendant. See United States v. Murillo, 288 F.3d 1126, 1140 (9th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). 3. The district court did not abuse its

A: holding that prosecutorial blunder did not prejudice the defendant as the blunder was effectively cured by the instruction to the jury to disregard it
B: holding that any prejudice resulting from a misstatement of the law by the prosecutor was cured by trial courts proper instruction on applicable law
C: holding that the prejudicial effect of a direct reference to an accuseds failure to testify normally cannot be cured by an instruction to disregard
D: holding that instruction to disregard cured error from prosecutors improper comment during voir dire
A.