With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 700 F.2d 427, 429 (1st Cir.1983). In this case, the specificity of the indictment’s allegations “fairly [apprised] the defendant of the crimes with which he was charged,” Kimberlin, 18 F.3d at 1159, quoting Land v. United States, 177 F.2d 346, 348 (4th Cir.1949), and the date of the conspiracy was not a substantive element of the crime of conspiracy. Even if an improper variance had existed, it would not have impinged on Queen’s substantial rights. Furthermore, the district court’s decision not to give the defendant’s- offered limiting instructions to the jury was a reasonable exercise of its discretion. “A district court’s refusal to provide an th Cir.1993) (admitting testimony of defendant's prior extortionate acts to show motive, intent, and plan); Russell, 971 F.2d at 1106-07 (<HOLDING>). 4 . The archetype of this practice appears at

A: holding other crimes evidence admissible to show motive where motive was put in issue by defense at trial
B: holding evidence of prior drug use admissible to show motive and the nature of the defendants relationship with coconspirators
C: holding evidence of defendants gambling losses and extramarital affair admissible to show motive to kill when he admitted to police that he drugged and robbed murder victims but claimed he did not kill them
D: holding evidence of defendants extramarital affairs and discharge from the marine corps admissible to show motive in the murder of defendants wife
D.