With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". that an omission of an element from a jury instruction that is harmless, under the standard set forth in Neder, does not affect a defendant’s substantial rights for purposes of plain error review. United States v. Tuyet Thi-Bach Nguyen, 565 F.3d 668, 677 (9th’ Cir.2009). We must “conduct a thorough examination” of all the evidence in the record and ask whether the omitted element was supported by sufficient evidence. Neder, 527 U.S. at 17, 119 S.Ct. 1827. Cases that have upheld convictions rendered on incomplete or erroneous jury instructions have relied on “strong and convincing evidence” that the prosecution has adequately proved the missing element of the crime. United States v. Perez, 116 F.3d 840, 848 (9th Cir.1997); see also United States v. Smith, 282 F.3d 758 (9th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>); Tuyet Thi-Bach Nguyen, 565 F.3d at 677

A: holding that the omission of an element from jury in structions was not plain error where the underlying fact supporting the element was undisputed based on the uncontradicted testimony of a government witness
B: holding that knowledge element could not be deemed in favor of plaintiff where defendant objected to the omission of that element from the jury charge
C: holding that the omission of an element is subject to harmless error analysis
D: holding under a plain error analysis that a failure to charge the jury with an essential element did not warrant reversal of the conviction where the evidence supporting that element was overwhelming
A.