With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". and he has not shown that the prosecutor's com-merits had an effect on the outcome given the overwhelming evidence of guilt. See United States v. Johnson, 408 F.3d 535, 539 (8th Cir.2005). GRUENDER, Circuit Judge, concurring. I concur in full in the judgment and in the Court’s opinion except as to the finding of error in the admission into evidence of the face sheet of the search warrant under Federal Rule of Evidence 403. I would find that the district court did not err in admitting the face sheet of the search warrant. I believe that, as a general proposition, admitting into evidence the search warrant face sheet can be proper to show the context for law enforcement presence and the lawfulness of the subsequent search. Cf. United States v. Wilson, 922 F.2d 1336, 1339 (7th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). Ordinarily, the face sheet of a search

A: holding that without evidence of a warrant to explain the officers presence the jury would have been left scratching its collective head about what the police were doing at the defendants girlfriends apartment in the first place
B: holding that the warrant application at issue did not specifically mention the presence of criminal activity at defendants residence but that the executing officers reasonably relied on warrant
C: holding that the warrant application at issue did not specifically mention the presence of criminal activity at defendants residence but that the executing officers reasonably relied on the warrant
D: holding that the defendant had consented where he allowed the police officers into his apartment building and allowed the officers to follow him into his apartment without impediment or objection to the entry of the police
A.