With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 3E1.1, comment (n.5). It is well settled that a defendant who exercises his constitutional right to a trial does not automatically forfeit the benefit of the adjustment for acceptance of responsibility. See United States v. McKinney, 15 F.3d 849, 853 (9th Cir.1994). For example, a defendant who goes to trial in order to challenge the validity of the government’s theory may, in certain circumstances, still receive a downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility. See United States v. Ochoa-Gaytan, 265 F.3d 837, 844 (9th Cir.2001); United States v. McKittrick, 142 F.3d 1170, 1178 (9th Cir.1998). Even if he contests his guilt at trial, there are rare circumstances in which a defendant who manifests genuine contrition for his acts may merit an adjustment. See McKinney, 15 F.3d at 853 (<HOLDING>). This case, however, does not present a

A: holding that there was no miscarriage of justice where the defendant claimed that the government abused its discretion by refusing to request a threelevel downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility
B: holding that adjustment for acceptance of responsibility is appropriate where the district court rebuffed a defendants attempts to plead guilty
C: holding that courts mention of a guilty plea and acceptance of responsibility to defense counsel was not reversible error
D: holding defendant was not entitled to acceptance of responsibility despite his plea of guilty where he attempted to suborn perjury
B.