With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". contain the statutory reference. Those criminal informations charged the defendant with violating Mich. Comp. Laws § 800.283(4) on both occasions. That statute, presently and in 1993 when the defendant was last convicted, states that “[ujnless authorized by the chief administrator of the correctional facility, a prisoner shall not have in his or her possession or under his or her control a weapon or other implement which may be used to injure a prisoner or other person, or to assist a prisoner to escape from imprisonment.” (emphasis added). A person convicted of violating this statute may be sentenced to a minimum of two years imprisonment. See People v. Rau, 174 Mich.App. 339, 344-M5, 436 N.W.2d 409, 412 (1989). Cf. People v. Crooks, 151 Mich.App. 389, 391, 390 N.W.2d 250, 252 (1986) (<HOLDING>). The Michigan statute does not define a crime

A: holding that a potential prison sentence of up to five years was clearly serious
B: holding that five alleged incidents in four years were too few too separate in time and too mild  to create an abusive working environment
C: holding that a sentence of from three to five years for violating mich comp laws  8002834 is too severe case remanded for resentencing
D: holding that rule 36 may not be used by the district court to fundamentally alter the defendants sentence from three to five years imprisonment in an attempt to conform the sentence to the intention of the parties as reflected in the plea agreement which provided that the prisoner would serve exactly five years
C.