With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (2004). Here, the State submitted computer printouts as evidence of Defendant’s prior criminal convictions from the United States and Texas. The documents state that they contain information from “NLETS”, “Crime Records Service DPS Austin TX” and the FBI. The FBI printout contains a detailed description of Defendant, including his fingerprint identifier number and FBI number, sex, race, birth date, height and weight. It also indicates that Defendant has been convicted of multiple offenses and has an additional criminal history record in Texas. We hold that these computer printouts are sufficient to prove Defendant’s prior convictions under section 15A-1340.14(f)(4). See State v. Rich, 130 N.C. App. 113, 116, 502 S.E.2d49, 51, disc. review denied, 349 N.C. 237, 516 S.E.2d 605 (1998) (<HOLDING>). However, the State has failed to satisfy its

A: holding that the proper procedure to prove prior convictions is to offer a certified copy of the conviction
B: holding that a computerized printout with the heading dci record and containing various identifying characteristics of the defendant was competent to prove prior convictions
C: holding that it was not plain error for the district court to find the police officers identification of a defendant as a member of the fresno bulldogs gang and testimony about the nature and identifying characteristics of the organization including drug distribution were relevant in a drug conspiracy case
D: holding that prior demonstration of computerized supermarket upc code system was prior use under meaning of section 102b
B.