With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". You know that Kenny Mohammed told you the truth from all of the evidence in this case. The evidence in this case corroborates what Kenny Mohammed told you from that stand. The prosecutor then proceeded to summarize that corroborating evidence, discussing the recordings of Mohammed receiving and making calls before the transactions, the testimony of agents who witnessed the wine-colored Corolla and Mohammed’s movements at both transactions, the expert testimony of Agent Coleman regarding the typical structure of these drug transactions, and the evasive moves made by Johnson in the wine-colored Corolla. Thus, the prosecutor properly argued that the evidence compelled the conclusion that Mohammed complied with his immunity agreement by testifying truthfully. See Clarke, 227 F.3d at 885 (<HOLDING>). Finally, Johnson challenges the prosecutor’s

A: holding witnesss prior consistent statement admissible where defense counsel implied in his opening statement that witness should not be believed because of the favorable consideration he received from the government in his plea bargaining agreement
B: holding that under subsection al as then written the defendant had no right to appeal whether his sentence was supported by evidence presented because he entered into a plea agreement as to the sentence
C: holding that the prosecutors statement about a witnesss truthfulness was proper because the evidence showed that the witness complied with the plea agreement not that he told the truth simply because he entered into the plea agreement
D: holding that a rule 41e claimant relinquished any possessory claim he had to the property when he signed a forfeiture agreement at the time he entered into a plea bargain
C.