With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of the Danielses. But the fact that the government allowed him to participate in those proceedings is not equivalent to saying that his participation was required by an explicit or implicit employment relationship. Nor is Jaskolski following the wishes of Agent Campbell or AUSA Butler equivalent to the federal government controlling his activities with respect to the federal investigation and prosecution of the Danielses. On such scant evidence of actual control by the federal government, Jaskolski's arguments would require this court to conclude that anyone who cooper ates with a federal prosecutor is immune from liability as if he or she is a federal prosecutor. That simply cannot be an accurate assessment of the law. See Slagle v. United States, 612 F.2d 1157, 1160-61 (9th Cir.1980) (<HOLDING>). There is no evidence that Jaskolski was

A: holding that a federal drug informant acting under the partial direction of the fbi and for pay was not a federal employee under the ftca
B: holding that the federal government was liable for a taking of property where california officials acting under the authority of a federal order occupied land
C: holding that cooperating witness under direction of fbi was acting under color of law
D: holding that informant acted under color of law when fbi supervised recording
A.