With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". United States v. Lopez, 437 F.3d 1059, 1063-64 (10th Cir.2006) (quotation omitted). Whatever influence Owens’ former legal role had on Kim’s decision to confess that there were “some plants back there,” we conclude that that influence was overshadowed by Kim’s mistaken belief that her son had turned her in. And significantly, Kim would have formed that belief about her son before Owens approached her with that information, as she overheard other deputies telling Owens that her son revealed that “marijuana [was] growing on [the] property.” Aplt. App. at 357. None of the other circumstances surrounding her confession, including Owens’ admonishment, “[D]on’t lie to me,” id. at 359, indicates that her confession was involuntary. See Amaya-Ruiz v. Stewart, 121 F.3d 486, 494 (9th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>); cf. Beecher v. Alabama, 389 U.S. 35, 36, 38,

A: holding that officers encouragement to tell the truth  did not amount to coercion
B: holding that in 1998 the law was clearly established that excessive duration of a police dog bite and improper encouragement of a continuation of the attack by officers could constitute excessive force
C: holding that when trial court orders restitution at sentencing pursuant to statute the defendant is entitled to notice of the amount claimed and the opportunity to dispute the amount
D: holding in case where po lice dog bit plaintiff for approximately fifteen seconds in officers presence that excessive duration of the bite and improper encouragement of a continuation of the attack by officers could constitute excessive force
A.