With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 2011, this court granted the government’s Emergency Motion to stay the criminal trial and the setting of further pretrial proceedings in the district court, pending the resolution of this appeal. This court has appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3731. DISCUSSION 1. We first consider whether the district court erred in suppressing the evidence obtained from the government’s wiretaps. This court reviews the issuing court’s wiretap order for clear error, see United States v. Tomblin, 46 F.3d 1369, 1376 (5th Cir.1995), but reviews de novo the district court’s conclusion that “necessity,” as required by 18 U.S.C. § 2518(l)(c), was not met. See United States v. Edwards, 303 F.3d 606, 619 (5th Cir.2002); United States v. Smith, 273 F.3d 629, 632 (5th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). Two district judges separately authorized the

A: holding that on review of a motion to suppress the appellate court is to give deference to a trial courts factual findings but legal conclusions are reviewed de novo
B: recognizing ruling on motion for judgment of acquittal is reviewed de novo on appeal
C: holding that a legal conclusion on a motion to suppress is reviewed de novo
D: holding that confrontation clause claims are reviewed de novo
C.