With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". and directly connected to the offense, under the facts of the case taken as a whole. For example, if the defendant engaged in several acts of mailing threatening letters to the same victim over a period of years (including acts that occurred prior to the offense), then for purposes of determining whether subseetion[ ](b)(l) ... [applies], the court shall consider only those prior acts of threatening the victim that have a substantial and direct connection to the offense. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2A6.1(b)(l), cmt. n. 2. The pivotal inquiry when determining the appropriateness of a § 2A6.1(b)(l) enhancement is whether the defendant intended to carry out the threat, and the likelihood that he would actually do so. United States v. Gary, 18 F.3d 1123, 1127-28 (4th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, essential to the determination

A: holding that unrebutted evidence can and should form the basis for summary judgment
B: holding that the failure to disclose evidence known to the defense cannot form the basis of a brady violation
C: holding that 1 usc  1 does not apply except where it is necessary to carry out the evident intent of the statute
D: holding that any acts that evidence an intent to carry out the threats may form the basis for a  2a61bl enhancement
D.