With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". has met “the burden of showing that ‘such an adjustment is necessary to the determination of a reasonable fee.’” Dague, 505 U.S. at 562, 112 S.Ct. at 2641 (emphasis added) (quoting Blum, 465 U.S. at 898, 104 S.Ct. at 1548). Moreover, we disagree with the dissent that the unavailability of willing local counsel is not a proper factor justifying an enhancement of the lodestar. Such an enhancement is clearly necessary to a reasonable fee where the district court finds that the case is of the type that attorneys are unwilling to take for fear of ostracization and out of concern for their personal safety. Such a consideration is hot ordinarily reflected in the lodestar, and we find that it was clearly not reflected in the lodestar in this particular instance. See Stewart, 987 F.2d at 1454 (<HOLDING>). In the alternative, the dissent contests the

A: recognizing contribution in the appropriate case
B: recognizing same factors
C: holding that application of  2a31 is appropriate even when the victim is fictional as an enhancement for a fictitious victim is consistent with the utilitarian purpose of the enhancement
D: recognizing that after dague enhancement is still appropriate in limited circumstances on the basis of factors not fully reflected in the basie fee
D.