With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". J., dissenting). 13 . See, e.g., Van Hook v. Anderson, 488 F.3d 411, 424-25 (6th Cir.2007); Owens v. Bowersox, 290 F.3d 960, 963 (8th Cir.2002). 14 . Arizona v. Mauro, 481 U.S. 520, 529-30, 107 S.Ct. 1931, 95 L.Ed.2d 458 (1987). 15 . Michigan v. Harvey, 494 U.S. 344, 350, 110 S.Ct. 1176, 108 L.Ed.2d 293 (1990). 16 . Arizona v. Roberson, 486 U.S. 675, 681, 108 S.Ct. 2093, 100 L.Ed.2d 704 (1988) (emphasis added) (quoting Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96, 110 n. 2, 96 S.Ct. 321, 46 L.Ed.2d 313 (1975) (White, J., concurring)). 17 .See Santistevan, 701 F.3d at 1296 (Tymkovich, J. dissenting) (Noting that third-party reinitiation is appropriate when government is not working with the third party). 18 . Cf. Connecticut v. Barrett, 479 U.S. 523, 528-29, 107 S.Ct. 828, 93 L.Ed.2d 920 (1987) (<HOLDING>). 19 . Id. at 529, 107 S.Ct. 828. 20 . United

A: holding that a defendants fifth amendment rights were violated when an interpreter was withdrawn by the court
B: holding that a suspects fifth amendment rights were not violated when he agreed to speak with officers but refused to give a  written statement without an attorney
C: holding that the statement ill take the fifth was an assertion of the fifth amendment privilege
D: holding fifth amendment not violated under above rationale
B.