With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". pages 7-34 to 7-66 and page F- 1 (the Table of Contents). Most of these enhancements are too trivial to be afforded copyright protection. Enhancements such as the coloration of the text (adding red print) are not copyrightable. See 37 C.F.R. § 202.1(a); U.S. Copyright Office, Compendium II: Compendium of Copyright Office Practices § 503.02(a) (1984) (“[M]ere coloration cannot support a copyright even though it may enhance the aesthetic appeal or commercial value of a work.”). While the term “line art” is unclear, “mere variations of typographic ornamentation” are not subject to copyright protection. 37 C.F.R. § 202.1(a). The table of contents does not have sufficient creativity to be protected either. See Matthew Bender & Co. v. West Publishing Co., 158 F.3d 674, 683-89 (2d Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). Spilman also claims copyright protection for

A: holding that evidence of subsequent criminal conduct may be used at sentencing hearing on prior criminal charge and stating that misdeeds occurring up to the time of sentencing whether before the finding of guilty or subsequent are relevant as they go to the defendants history and character 
B: holding that enhancements such shortening the form of titles capitalizing letters providing subsequent case history and other gardenvariety additions are not copyrightable because they miss the creative spark
C: holding that broadcasts of national basketball association games are copyrightable but that the games themselves are not copyrightable as such copyright preemption did not apply
D: holding that while broadcasts of basketball games are copyrightable the scores of basketball games represent purely factual information which any patron of an nba game could acquire from the arena as such the underlying games are not copyrightable
B.