With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Thus, there was no possibility that the jury’s § 924(c) verdict rested only on a Hobbs Act robbery predicate because (1) the robbery was an act inextricably intertwined with and, indeed, in furtherance of the charged narcotics conspiracy, and (2) the jury found that narcotics conspiracy proved beyond a reasonable doubt. In these circumstances, where a challenged § 924 verdict undoubtedly rests on a valid drug-trafficking predicate, no Yates concern arises from a possible defect in a related “crime of violence” predicate. See United States v. Zvi, 168 F.3d 49, 55-56 (2d Cir. 1999) (rejecting Yates challenge where time-barred money-laundering predicate implicitly required finding of valid wire-fraud predicate); see also United States v. Coppola, 671 F.3d 220, 237-38 (2d Cir. 2012) (<HOLDING>). ' To the extent Vasquez hypothesizes a way in

A: holding that any error was harmless and thus not plain error
B: holding that failure to give richardson instruction was harmless error where jury separately and unanimously convicted defendant of crimes that served as cce predicates
C: holding that any error in trial courts comparative negligence instruction was harmless where the jury found that both defendants were not negligent
D: holding any yates error harmless where predicates rested on same extortive acts of which jury found defendants guilty
D.