With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the applicability of reductions to the offense level. United States v. Dinges, 917 F.2d 1133, 1135 (8th Cir.1990). The district court did not clearly err by denying Rayner’s request for the reduction. Though Rayner’s involvement in the conspiracy was not as great as some of the other participants, it entailed far more than one isolated drug sale and possession of twenty-six grams of PCP, as he asserts. See, e.g., United States v. Regan, 940 F.2d 1134, 1136 (8th Cir.1991); United States v. Hutchinson, 926 F.2d 746, 747 (8th Cir.1991) (per curiam). We also reject Rayner’s contention that, by relying on testimony from the trial of his co-conspirators to deny the reduction, the court violated the Confrontation Clause. See United States v. Wise, 976 F.2d 393, 398 (8th Cir.1992) (banc) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 1592, 123

A: holding confrontation clause inapplicable at sentencing
B: holding that in reviewing confrontation clause challenge appellate courts must first determine whether the confrontation clause is implicated
C: holding that the confrontation clause applies only to trials and not to sentencing hearings
D: holding that the confrontation clause does not apply to the sentencing hearing
A.