With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". U.S. at 338, 101 S.Ct. at 1142; Gore v. United States, 357 U.S. 386, 389, 78 S.Ct. 1280, 1283, 2 L.Ed.2d 1405 (1958). In this case, the bribery charge (18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(2)(A)) and the obstruction of justice charge (18 U.S.C. § 1503) each require proof of facts that the other offense does not. Bribery does not require proof that Muhammad knew of a pending judicial proceeding or that he endeavored to influence, obstruct, and impede the due administration of justice, see 18 U.S.C. § 1503; and obstruction of justice does not require proof that Muhammad was a public official or that he demanded, sought, or agreed to receive a thing of value for himself in exchange for an official act performed by him, see 18 U.S.C. § 201. Cf. United States v. Langella, 776 F.2d 1078, 1082 (2d Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>). Each count plainly requires proof of several

A: recognizing the test for business nexus is distinct from transactional nexus and its test for dissociation
B: holding that perjury and obstruction of justice are distinct offenses under the blockbwrger test
C: holding that leaving the scene and failing to render assistance are separate and distinct offenses
D: holding that drug type and quantity do not constitute formal elements of separate and distinct offenses under section 84ibl
B.