With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". The evidence showed that in July 2001, Ms. Smalls paid three separate visits to “Johnie Mae Simmons” at the address listed on the tax returns for J.M.S. Services. Finally, when Ms. Smalls was arrested for bank fraud, she had in her possession a counterfeit check in the amount of $91,000 made payable to her company, Smalls Multimedia Film Production (“Smalls Multimedia”), by Lambertson Truex, Inc. The jury could reasonably have inferred Ms. Smalls’s knowledge that the check was fraudulent from the fact that neither she nor her company had any relationship with Lambertson Truex that would have explained that company’s issuance of a valid check to Smalls Multimedia in such a large amount. See generally Barnes v. United States, 412 U.S. 837, 845-46, 93 S.Ct. 2357, 37 L.Ed.2d 380 (1973) (<HOLDING>). As for Ms. Smalls’s intent to use the

A: holding that an officer may run computer checks as part of his investigation of the circumstances that originally caused him to stop a vehicle
B: holding that joinder in or consent to the removal petition must be accomplished by only those defendants 1 who have been served and 2 whom the removing defendants actually knew or should have known had been served
C: holding that common sense and experience permitted jury to conclude from defendants unexplained possession of recentlystolen checks that defendant must have known or been aware of the high probability that checks were stolen
D: holding that a defendant must show reasonable probability that but for the error he would not have entered the plea
C.