With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". held that a break period could be excluded from hours worked has done so in the context of a bona fide meal period. See, e.g., Bernard v. IBP, Inc., 154 F.3d 259 (5th Cir.1998); Reich v. S. New England Telecomm. Corp., 121 F.3d 58 (2d Cir.1997); Bates v. Dep’t of Corrections, 81 F.3d 1008 (10th Cir.1996); Henson v. Pulaski County Sheriff Dep’t, 6 F.3d 531 (8th Cir.1993); Alexander v. City of Chicago, 994 F.2d 333 (7th Cir.1993); Kohlheim v. Glynn County, 915 F.2d 1473 (11th Cir.1990); Brennan v. Elmer’s Disposal Serv., Inc., 510 F.2d 84 (9th Cir.1975). This Court has only found two cases involving rest periods outside of the bona fide meal period exclusion. One involved a special exception pertaining to law enforcement employees. See Lee v. Coahoma County, 937 F.2d 220 (5th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). The other held that Bus drivers’ "split shift

A: holding that defendants were not in control and therefore were not supervisors and not subject to liability under  1983
B: holding law enforcement request for identification not tantamount to seizure finding no constitutional violation when law enforcement conduct consisted simply of questioning employees and arresting those they had probable cause to believe were unlawfully present
C: holding act qualifies as exemption statute under exemption 3
D: holding that two hour rest breaks were compensable sleep time for law enforcement employees that were subject to the exemption under  207k
D.