With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". held that, under the consent-once-removed doctrine, an undercover agent or informant in a suspect’s home may signal to agents outside to come in and effectuate an arrest. Id.; United States v. Romero, 452 F.3d 610, 618-19 (6th Cir.2006). But this court has not extended the doctrine to cover reentry after the undercover agent or informant has left the premises, or where there is no intent to effectuate an arrest, and we decline to do so here. The defendants urge us to follow the Seventh Circuit’s line of cases extending the consent-once-removed doctrine to the warrantless entry of backup officers where the undercover agent or informant, who initially entered by consent, exited moments before the backup officers entered. See United States v. Akinsanya, 53 F.3d 852, 855-56 (7th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Diaz, 814 F.2d 454, 459 (7th

A: holding that dea agents may enter moments after or at the same time as the informant exited because they were immediately summoned by the informant
B: holding that information from confidential informant was reliable and credible where affidavit referred to previous instances in which informant provided correct information to police affiants own investigation and controlled buy of contraband confirmed information and second informant supplied same information to police
C: holding corroborating evidence sufficient that officer drove informant to defendants house saw defendant admit informant and saw informant come out with drugs and defendants voice was identified on audio tape of transaction
D: recognizing affiants averments that informant had assisted police in apprehension of another drug felon in determining reliability of informant
A.