With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". v. Williams, 974 F.2d 480, 481-82 (4th Cir.1992); United States v. Suarez, 906 F.2d 977, 984-85 (4th Cir.1990). As we explained in Grossman, [w]hen issuing a warrant and making a probable cause determination, judges are to use a “totality of the rroneously discounted Special Agent Neikirk’s assertion of training-and experience-based knowledge to tie Williams’s and Thomas’s drug trafficking activities to their residences. Had the court given due consideration to Neikirk’s assertion, together with the extensive evidence of Williams’s and Thomas’s drug trafficking activities detailed in the Sandpiper Court and Baltimore Avenue affidavits, it could not have concluded that the affidavits were “bare bones” with respect to the criminal activity-dwelling nexus. See Wilhelm, 80 F.3d at 121 (<HOLDING>). Indeed, the court would have necessarily

A: holding that compliance with rule 3 is both a mandatory and jurisdictional prerequisite to appeal internal quotation marks omitted
B: recognizing that a bare bones affidavit is one that contains wholly conclusory statements which lack the facts and circumstances from which a magistrate can independently determine probable cause internal quotation marks omitted
C: recognizing probable cause as complete defense to a claim of malicious prosecution in new york internal quotation marks and brackets omitted
D: holding that affidavit is inadequate if it fails to disclose facts which would enable the magistrate to ascertain from the affidavit that the event upon which the probable cause was founded was not so remote as to render it ineffective
B.