With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Because jeopardy never attached to the initial charges against Mr. Webster, his double jeopardy rights were not implicated. Id. at 898, 95 S.Ct. at 1065 ("[Aln accused must suffer jeopardy before he can suffer double jeopardy."). [110] However, the absence of double jeopardy does not dispose of the dismissal with prejudice, While similar, a dismissal with prejudice is a procedural rule rather than a constitutional protection. A dismissal with prejudice "bars the reprosecution of the defendant on the same charge," United States v. Bilsky, 664 F.2d 618, 617 (6th Cir. 1981), and has a res judicata effect on subsequent prosecutions, which requires analysis of whether the requirements of res judicata have been met. See People w. Creek 94 111.20 526, 69 118, 447 N.E.2d 830, 383 (1983) (<HOLDING>). [911] Much like W.R.Cr.P. 48 and the

A: holding in res judicata context that  final judgment on the merits is synonymous with dismissal with prejudice 
B: holding that a dismissal with preju dice operated as res judicata on a later indictment for the same charge
C: holding res judicata inapplicable where previous dismissal was based on lack of jurisdiction
D: holding that under federal law the dismissal of a claim as timebarred is adjudication of merits for purposes of res judicata
B.