With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 18, 2015) (unpublished) (finding that deficiencies in translated affidavits were cured by introduction of translator’s identity and oath and affirmation of. accuracy via supplemental affidavit). Finally, the court is satisfied that the translated declarations are admissible for purposes of summary judgment despite the fact that the Navajo-speaking declar-ants signed a document presented solely in English. “Nothing in § 1746 requires that a non-English speaking affiant provide evidence that the declaration was translated into the affiant’s native language before signing it. Moreover, ... such an argument would go to the weight of the declaration and not its admissibility.” Collazos-Cruz v. U.S., 117 F.3d 1420 (unpublished table opinion), 1997 WL 377037, at *3 (6th Cir. Jul. 3, 1997) (<HOLDING>); see also Ahn v. Hanil Dev., Inc., 471

A: holding that when there are no genuine issues of material fact summary judgment is appropriate
B: holding improperly admitted testimony was cumulative to the other properly admitted evidence and was therefore harmless
C: holding that a translated declaration was validly admitted at summary judgment despite the fact that there was no evidence that the declaration was translated to the spanishspeaking declarant from english to spanish
D: holding there was no rule 404b violation where the evidence was admitted to show knowledge and knowledge was an element of the crime charged
C.