With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". intended to punish him for exercising a legal right. Although a defendant may, in rare instances, rely upon a presumption of vindictiveness, see Beede, 974 F.2d at 951, Kriens does not benefit from such a presumption in this case simply because the federal government prosecuted him after he refused to plead guilty in state court, see id. at 952. Accordingly, Kriens’ claim that the prosecution violated the Fifth Amendment fails. U.S. V. KRIENS Cite as 270 F.3d 597 (8th Cir. 2001) Similarly, Kriens has failed to demonstrate that the prosecution violated the Sixth Amendment. It would be improper to prosecute a defendant on the basis of facts wholly or partially acquired by the prosecutor from the accused’s private attorney. Cf. Gajewski v. United States, 321 F.2d 261, 267 (8th Cir.1963) (<HOLDING>). The burden, however, is on the defendant to

A: holding that attorney generals authority to deport creates no private right of action for a criminal alien because attorney general must act in best interest of united states not the criminal alien
B: holding under section 1420 district attorney lacks authority to appoint deputy attorney general as an assistant prosecutor in a drug possession case
C: holding that assistant united states attorney may file information requesting sentence enhancement based on prior conviction even though statute says that information must be filed by the united states attorney
D: holding that it would be improper for a united states district attorney to prosecute a defendant using information the prosecutor had obtained while acting as the accuseds private attorney
D.