With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". United States v. Vazquez-Pulido, 155 F.3d 1213, 1216 (10th Cir.1998) (quoting Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85, 91, 100 S.Ct. 338, 62 L.Ed.2d 238 (1979)). “However, where there are facts in addition to one’s association with someone engaged in [or some place associated with] criminal activity, ... we must consider whether the ‘totality of the circumstances’ known at the time of the arrest established probable cause.” Id. at 1216-17 (citing United States v. Hillison, 733 F.2d 692, 697 (9th Cir.1984)) (“In order to find probable cause based on association with persons engaging in criminal activity, some additional circumstances from which it is reasonable to infer participation in criminal enterprise must be shown.”), and United States v. Ramirez, 963 F.2d 693, 698-99 (5th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). In this case, a number of facts beyond

A: holding that in certain circumstances where a defendant is convicted of a charge alleging a conspiracy to distribute one drug or another he must be sentenced as if the conviction were only for a conspiracy involving the drug that triggers the lowest statutory sentencing range
B: holding that police had probable cause to arrest defendant who was seen in the company of drug suspects was seen meeting suspects while they engaged in a drug conspiracy and whose behavior was consistent with the inference he was part of the conspiracy
C: holding that the state court ruling was objectively unreasonable where prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence that the petitioner murdered a known drug dealer although the state established that the petitioner planned to rob drug dealers for drugs or money the victim was a known drug dealer who kept drugs in his freezer and that freezer was open and empty after the homicide the petitioner and the victim had engaged in drug transactions in the past the petitioner had a motive because he had seen the victim make a pass at the petitioners girlfriend and the petitioner had possessed and once purchased the murder weapon and a similar gun was seen in his home two weeks before the murder evidence placing the petitioner at the scene was conspicuously absent leaving only a reasonable speculation that the petitioner was present
D: holding that evidence of prior drug transactions was admissible under rule 404b to show inter alia intent to enter into the drug conspiracy and knowledge of the conspiracy
B.