With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". As to the government’s evidence, Sanchez testified that the Cl initiated all recorded phone calls with Grajales and that the Cl set up all of the meetings with Grajales. The Cl called Grajales fifty times between October 5, 2009, and November 4, 2009, while Grajales placed six calls to the CL Additionally, the government’s evidence established that on one occasion Grajales had refused to participate in the scheme. Sanchez testified that Grajales failed to attend the first scheduled in-person meeting that the Cl and Sanchez set up. Based on this evidence, a reasonable jury could infer that Grajales missed this meeting because he was having second thoughts about going through with the Cl’s proposed scheme. Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58, 63, 108 S.Ct. 883, 99 L.Ed.2d 54 (1988) (<HOLDING>). Nevertheless, the Cl contacted Grajales once

A: holding that defendant was not entitled to entrapment instruction when there was insufficient evidence to support such an instruction
B: holding the defendant is entitled to an entrapment instruction when sufficient evidence exists from which a reasonable jury could find entrapment
C: holding that inducement occurring before the informant was directed or supervised by the government could not support an entrapment defense
D: holding an inducement to commit a crime by a private party who has no government involvement does not establish an entrapment defense
B.