With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Executive Branch official had ever treated such activities as having criminal consequences. It appears, however, that after the third grant of immunity, Corr did not remain “under such reasonable apprehension of prosecution,” Gadd, 12 F.3d at 256, for his activities in connection with alleged circumvention of the Boland Amendments so as to continue his subject status for the remainder of Independent Counsel Walsh’s investigation. While Corr may have remained under the threat of a prosecution for alleged perjury, this, unlike a prosecution for violations of the Boland Amendments, does not satisfy the “but for” requirement since it is a type of prosecution that is not uniquely related to the Act. See Dutton, 11 F.3d at 1080; In re Nofziger, 925 F.2d 428, 439 (D.C.Cir.1991) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). In sum, we conclude that Corr was a subject

A: holding but for requirement not satisfied where investigation had no unique special factual features that but for the requirement of the act would have permitted a quick termination if the investigation were conducted outside the act
B: holding that challenge to oneyear residency requirement for divorce action was not moot even though plaintiff had since satisfied requirement
C: holding that the defendants were not liable for failing to perform the thorough professional investigation the plaintiff would have preferred
D: holding outofcourt statements relating to reasons for investigation are not admissible where the reasons for the investigation are not at issue
A.