With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". forth in Padilla, our ruling in this case would remain the same. The use of a federal-court guilty plea in a separate state proceeding is less a "practically inevitable” consequence of that plea, than a rare result of concurrent federal and state prosecutions. Padilla, 130 S.Ct. at 1478-82 (noting that under current law, deportation is more or less an automatic consequence of certain convictions). 2 . While a prior guilty plea can be deemed involuntary for purposes of admission in a later prosecution if the state and federal prosecutors ‘‘colluded’' with each other, there is no evidence of such collusion regarding the prosecutions of Rasheed. United States v. Williams, 104 F.3d 213, 215-17 (8th Cir.1997). 3 . Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966) (<HOLDING>). 4 . Although the tip in this case came from a

A: holding interrogation not custodial where suspect was given a choice of being interviewed in police station or elsewhere
B: holding that interrogation must cease if the suspect unambiguously asserts his right to counsel
C: holding that fifth amendment protection against selfincrimination requires police to notify suspect of right to counsel and to cut off interrogation once suspect invokes the right absent counsel further interrogation may not occur unless suspect initiates subsequent conversation if police initiate subsequent interrogation there can be no valid waiver of counsel even though police advise suspect of his or her constitutional rights and suspect acquiesces in the interrogation
D: holding that custodial interrogation by police must not occur prior to suspect being informed of his or her right to counsel and against selfincrimination
D.