With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". or revoking probation; issuance of warrants for arrest, criminal summonses, and search warrants; and proceedings with respect to release on bail or otherwise. Minn. R. Evid. 1101(b)(3). Our analysis turns on whether a restitution hearing constitutes “sentencing” under Minn. R. Evid. 1101(b)(3). We review the interpretation of the rules of evidence de novo. State v. McCurry, 770 N.W.2d 553, 559 (Minn.App. 2009), review denied (Minn. Oct. 28, 2009). Willis correctly asserts that rule 1101(b)(3) does not expressly exempt restitution hearings from the rules of evidence. But that do States, — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 1854, 1857-59, 188 L.Ed.2d 885 (2014). This analysis also comports with the caselaw of other states. See, e.g., People v. Matzke, 303 Mich.App. 281, 842 N.W.2d 557, 559-60 (2013) (<HOLDING>); State v. Ruttman, 598 N.W.2d 910, 911

A: holding that because the rules of evidence including the rule against hearsay do not apply to sentencing hearings the district court did not err in relying on hearsay in ordering restitution
B: holding that confrontation clause protections do not extend to sentencing hearings
C: holding that because restitution hearings are a part of sentencing and have nothing to do with a defendants guilt or innocence the rules of evidence do not apply
D: holding that disputes as to evidence admitted at a restitution hearing are meritless because the rules of evidence do not apply during sentencing proceedings
C.