With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Court finds that Defen dant has failed to make out a prima facie case that Hispanics are underrepresented in either the grand or petit juries in this case. Native Americans. The Defendant has also failed to show that Native Americans are grossly underrepresented in the grand or petit juries. With respect to the grand jury, Native Americans constitute 1.4 percent of the Qualified Jury Wheel and 1.7 percent of the adult population of that division, resulting in an absolute disparity of 0.3 percent. For the petit jury, Native Americans constitute 5.2 percent of the Qualified Jury List and 8.7 percent of the adult population, resulting in an absolute disparity of 3.5 percent. Again, these absolute disparity numbers fall well within the acceptable range. See, e.g., Yazzie, 660 F.2d at 427 (<HOLDING>). The comparative disparity numbers of 17.6

A: holding an absolute disparity of 43 percent for native americans insufficient to establish a prima facie case of underrepresentation
B: holding that threeyear difference from 49 to 46 years old was insufficient to establish fourth requirement of prima facie case
C: holding that a prima facie case is subject to independent review
D: holding that close temporal proximity is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of retaliation
A.