With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the district court was not clearly erroneous in accepting [the officer's] testimony that he only promised to make [the defendant's] cooperation known to the United States Attorney’s office and gave no guarantee of a reduced sentence. Although [the officer] told [the defendant] that cooperating defendants generally ‘fared better time-wise,’ this statement did not amount to an illegal inducement: 'telling the [defendant] in a noncoercive manner of the realistically expected penalties and encouraging [him] to tell the truth is no more than affording [him] the chance to make an informed decision with respect to [his] cooperation with the government.' ” (Quoting United States v. Ballard, 586 F.2d 1060, 1063 (5th Cir.1978)). Accord United States v. Levy, 955 F.2d 1098, 1105 (7th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Meirovitz, 918 F.2d 1376,

A: holding that agents promise to inform prosecutor of defendants cooperation does not render a subsequent confession involuntary
B: holding that federal agents indication to defendant that his cooperation would be reported to the united states attorney did not make defendants confession involuntary
C: holding that cooperation was insufficient where the defendants cooperation was based on his confession to the charged crimes
D: holding that united states attorney was not required to abide by a secret service agents promise to a defendant to drop federal charges in exchange for defendants cooperation where the united states attorney never sanctioned the agreement and the promise was clearly outside the agents authority
B.