With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Allen, 211 F.3d at 975. And, importantly, the controlled buy does not stand on its own; rather, it serves to bolster Compton’s credibility as an informant. “It is enough, for purposes of assessing probable cause, that ‘corroboration through other sources of information reduced the chances of a reckless or prevaricating tale,’ thus providing ‘a substantial basis for crediting the [informant’s] hearsay.’ ” Gates, 462 U.S. at 244-45, 103 S.Ct. 2317 (quoting Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, 269, 271, 80 S.Ct. 725, 4 L.Ed.2d 697 (1960)). By substantiating one detail of Compton’s story — a detail, moreover, unique to Brian Howard’s modus operandi — the controlled buy reduced the chance that Compton’s tip was a “reckless or prevaricating tale.” Id.; see also Gunter, 551 F.3d at 480-81 (<HOLDING>). For this reason, we find unavailing

A: holding corroboration is not a necessity where confidential informants reliability was well established and his tip was based on direct personal observation of criminal activity
B: holding that a known informants statement can support probable cause even though the affidavit fails to provide any additional basis for the known informants credibility
C: recognizing that a suspects prior unlawful activity or related convictions can corroborate information supplied by informants
D: holding corroboration of named informants statements some of which included suspects hearsay enhanced informants reliability
D.