With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". an “officer of the United States.” Brief for Respondent IBR 16-17. We find this argument unpersuasive. IBR’s broad definition of “officer of the United States” may well be favored today. Cf. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1, 126 (1976) (“ ‘[O]ffi-cer of the United States,’ ” as used in Art. II, § 2, cl. 2, refers to any “appointee exercising significant authority pursuant to the laws of the United States”). But there is no evidence that this was the definition Congress had in mind in 1948, when it enacted § 1442(a)(1) and the companion provision defining “agency.” Indeed, in 1948 and for some time thereafter, the relationship between certain independent agencies and the “Government of the United States” was often disputed. See, e. g., Pierce v. United States, 314 U. S. 306 (1941) (<HOLDING>); see also Rainwater v. United States, 356 U.

A: holding that an officer or employee of the tennessee valley authority was not an officer or employee acting under the authority of the united states or any department or any officer of the government thereof within the meaning of a criminal statute first enacted in 1884
B: holding that a bankruptcy trustee is an officer of the court appointed by the court directed by the court and paid by the court but is in no sense an agent or employee or officer of the united states
C: holding that a public officer has no discretion or authority to misinterpret the law
D: holding that while a magistrate lacked the authority to enter an order granting a motion to correct error and thus that the order was defective for failing to contain the judges signature or another indication it was approved or adopted by the trial court the city waived any challenge to the validity of the order by failing to make a timely objection and observing that the indiana supreme court has long held that defects in the authority of a court officer as opposed to the jurisdiction of the trial court itself to enter a final order will be waived if not raised through a timely objection and more recently this court has applied the same principle to civil proceedings and clarified that any objection to the authority of an adjudicative officer must be raised at the first instance the irregularity occurs or at least within such time as the tribunal is able to remedy the defect
A.