With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 656 F.3d at 915. In so concluding, we noted that: If Hunt’s case had proceeded to trial, he could have raised Sixth Amendment or evidentiary objections, he could have presented expert testimony to counter the opinions of Detective Feliciano, he could have cross-examined the various civilian and government witnesses called by the government, and he could have decided to testify to tell his side of the story. Id. at 916. Here, had Guerrero-Jasso had the opportunity to challenge the authenticity of the warrant at trial, he could have pointed out the absence of live testimony from the immigration officer who signed the execution of warrant, as well as the absence of any testimony as to the form’s chain of custody. Cf. United States v. Estrada-Eliverio, 583 F.3d 669, 671-73 (9th Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>). On those bases, Guerrero-Jasso could have

A: holding that failure to deliver a copy of search warrant and itemized copy of the warrant return to defendant in absence of showing of injury reveals no error
B: holding that the government made a prima facie showing of authenticity of a warrant of removal where the immigration agent who maintained the defendants immigration file testified at trial as to his recordkeeping practices and that the warrant admitted was a true and correct copy of the warrant in the defendants file
C: holding that the warrant application at issue did not specifically mention the presence of criminal activity at defendants residence but that the executing officers reasonably relied on the warrant
D: holding that an arrest warrant can authorize entry into a dwelling only where the officials executing the warrant have reasonable or probable cause to believe the person named in the warrant is within
B.