With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". unwillingness to implicate others, including his supplier; his trial counsel's (er roneous) advice that his grand jury testimony could not be used against him if he "voided” the plea agreement and demanded a trial; and his trial counsel’s belief that his opportunity to plead was dependent upon a co-conspiralor entering a plea agreement. 8 . Although the appellant repeatedly identified the source of the narcotics when testifying before the grand jury, he refused to testify against the source once the latter was apprehended. 9 . The circuits are split on the question whether a sentencing court may consider evidence of the defendant’s refusal to implicate co-conspirators to deny an adjustment under Guideline § 3E1.1. Compare, e.g., United States v. Larkin, 171 F.3d 556, 558-59 (7th Cir.) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 883, 120 S.Ct. 198,

A: holding that the district courts denial of a reduction for acceptance of responsibility is a factual question and should be accorded great deference and should not be disturbed unless clearly erroneous
B: holding that defendant was not entitled to reduction for acceptance of responsibility where he failed to fully account for the proceeds of his crime and attempted to delay a longscheduled hearing based on an incredible claim of innocence
C: holding that it was clearly permissible for the district court to condition the reduction for acceptance of responsibility on the defendants willingness to provide information identifying the drug source
D: holding that adjustment for acceptance of responsibility is appropriate where the district court rebuffed a defendants attempts to plead guilty
C.