With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". CURIAM. Janice Camp appeals from the district court’s order affirming the Commissioner’s final decision to deny Camp’s application for Social Security disability benefits. Our review of the record discloses that the Commissioner’s decision is based upon substantial evidence and is without reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court. Camp v. Massanari, No. CA-00-186-1-C (W.D.N.C. May 15, 2001). Additionally, although Camp argues that the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) rejected Dr. Richard Munschy’s opinion without properly seeking additional information from the doctor, she has made no showing of prejudice. Thus, any error on the part of the ALJ was harmless. See Newton v. Apfel, 209 F.3d 448, 458 (5th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). We dispense with oral argument, because the

A: holding that even in separate trial other crimes evidence would not have been admissible and identification testimony would have been admissible
B: holding that evidence which by due diligence could have been produced in the first proceeding is considered to have been available at the first proceeding and therefore will not preclude the application of collateral estoppel
C: holding claim requires showing that additional evidence would have been produced that might have led to a different decision
D: holding that speculation as to how the evidence might have been beneficial was not enough
C.