With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". In United States v. Hernandez-Garcia, 442 Fed.Appx. 136, 137 (5th Cir. 2011) (per curiam), the district court found the defendant had not given truthful testimony at the sentencing hearing and had, therefore, obstructed justice. As a result, he was not entitled to a reduction of his sentence for acceptance of responsibility. We agreed, reasoning that “[b]ecause Hernandez did not accept responsibility under the Guidelines, the condition triggering the Government’s obligation not to oppose Hernandez’ request for an adjustment was not fulfilled; the Government was, therefore, not in breach of the agreement by opposing his request for an acceptance-of-responsibility adjustment.” Id. (emphasis omitted); cf. United States v. Bell, 417 Fed.Appx. 420, 422 (5th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). A contrary unpublished opinion, United States

A: holding that under  111 the defendants knowledge of the official status of the victim is generally irrelevant
B: holding the same where the defendant offered exculpatory and irrelevant interpretations of transactions and events deflected responsibility denied or discounted relevant conduct portrayed himself as a victim of unfair government treatment and generally denied or minimized his culpability at the sentencing hearing
C: holding that the defendant was denied wrongfully his right to crossexamine on the issue of whether the device was designed as a pipe bomb or as a firecracker and that the jury may have found reasonable doubt if that right was not denied
D: holding that where the proffered hearsay statement of the victim pertained to a memory of the previous days events and was offered solely for the purpose of proving such events such statement was not admissible under rule 8033
B.