With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". finding that section 1320a-7 was constitutional as applied to Manocchio. Specifically, the district court found that section 1320a-7 was not punitive, but rather remedial, and.therefore did not violate either the Double Jeopardy Clause or the Ex Post Facto Clause. II. ' ISSUE Whether 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7, a mandatory exclusionary provision, is punitive in nature and violates the Double Jeopardy and Ex Post Facto Clauses of the United States Constitution. III. DISCUSSION The threshold determination this court must make is whether 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7 is punitive in nature and effect because both the Double Jeopardy Clause and the Ex Post Facto Clause apply only to punitive sanctions. See United States v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435, 448-49, 109 S.Ct. 1892, 1901-02, 104 L.Ed.2d 487 (1989) (<HOLDING>); Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603, 613, 80

A: holding that double jeopardy clause is violated when a defendant punished in a criminal prosecution is penalized by a subsequent punitive civil sanction
B: holding double jeopardy clause applicable to civil penalties under the false claims act
C: holding that civil forfeitures are neither punishment nor criminal for purposes of the double jeopardy clause
D: holding that the due process clause is violated if the prosecution fails to disclose material evidence that is favorable to a criminal defendant
A.