With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 466, 119 S.Ct. 2013, 144 L.Ed.2d 442 (1999) (citing California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386, 390-91, 105 S.Ct. 2066, 85 L.Ed.2d 406 (1985)). 3 . United States v. Vazquez, 555 F.3d 923, 930 (10th Cir.2009). 4 . United States v. Bradford, 423 F.3d 1149, 1160 (10th Cir.2005). 5 . See Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 696, 116 S.Ct. 1657, 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996). 6 . United States v. Mathis, 357 F.3d 1200, 1203-04 (10th Cir.2004) (citing Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 230, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983)). 7 . Ornelas, 517 U.S. at 696, 116 S.Ct. 1657. 8 . See United States v. Jarvi, 537 F.3d 1256, 1259 (10th Cir.2008) (citing Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 487-88, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963)). 9 . See United States v. Gentry, 406 Fed.Appx. 274, 279 (10th Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>). 10 . See United States v. Herrera, 782 F.3d

A: holding that notice of a defect could not be imputed to a defendant inasmuch as it created the defect
B: holding a defendant is not entitled to a franks hearing without making a substantial preliminary showing that defect in the affidavit is material
C: holding that the defendant would have been entitled to a franks hearing had he shown that officers withheld negative information casting into doubt the dogs reliability
D: holding that speculation as to whether and when the police had actually field tested a bag reported to contain heroin falls far short of the substantial preliminary showing of intentional or reckless omission required by the franks test
B.