With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". by state law.” Id. at 391, 80 S.Ct. 1171. In Schmuck, it further clarified its Parr holding by noting that although the mailings in both cases. were compelled by law — tax laws in Parr and car registration procedure in Schmuck — the Parr mailings would have taken place “regardless of the defendant’s fraudulent scheme,” as contrasted with Schmuck, where the mailings were "derivative of Schmuck's scheme to sell ‘doctored’ cars and would not have occurred but for that scheme.” Schmuck, 489 U.S. at 713 n. 7, 109 S.Ct. 1443. 3 . The Supreme Court has held that certain mailings sent after the defendants have obtained the fraudulently sought funds or services may fall within the ambit of the mail fraud statute. See United States v. Sampson, 371 U.S. 75, 83 S.Ct. 173, 9 L.Ed.2d 136 (1962) (<HOLDING>). Subsequent mailings that are "designed to

A: holding that mailing element was satisfied where the defendants sent letters to fraud victims in an attempt to convince them that the promised services would be performed even though mailings were sent after victims money had been obtained
B: holding that consentsearch provision of a probation agreement was voluntary even though defendant would have been sent to prison if he rejected it
C: holding that a jury could reasonably infer defendant and his brother engaged in victims murder with deliberation where victims hands and feet were bound expert testimony was that victims injuries were inflicted when he was alive defendants gloves were discarded in victims trailer and defendant and his brother burned the trailer in an attempt to conceal the evidence
D: holding that the crime victims compensation act which compensated innocent victims of criminal acts was an attempt to remedy that situation and therefore applied retroactively
A.