With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". informant requires independent verification. It went on to note that many of the Cl’s statements in this case were independently verified, including his statement that Felipe was in Emporia on December 4, 2003, and could be found at a local motel. The court concluded that the information provided by SA Carroll “enabled the magistrate to judge the validity of the informant’s information, and showed some independent verification of the information given officers by the Cl.” R. doc. 103 at 10. The court also rejected defendant’s argument that the executing officers exceeded the scope of the first warrant by seizing methamphetamine, concluding that there was a logical nexus between the drugs and the terms of the first warrant. See United States v. Gentry, 642 F.2d 385, 387 (10th Cir.1981) (<HOLDING>). It also held that under the “practical

A: holding that a nexus between the corporate officers or directors official activity and the matter for which indemnification is sought must be shown though no more than a nexus whether a nexus exists is a question of fact to be determined by the trial court considering all the circumstances surrounding the proposed indemnification
B: holding that no federal nexus is required
C: holding that a nexus exists if the weapons were there to protect an active methamphetamine manufacturing operation
D: holding that items are admissible when a logical nexus exists between seized but unnamed items and those items fisted in the warrant
D.