With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 1035 (9th Cir.1998), as amended, 166 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir.1999) (stating that violation of § 5033 of Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act may, upon a showing of prejudice, justify limited remedies such as suppression, even though statutory violation does not deny due process), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 120 S.Ct. 106, 145 L.Ed.2d 89 (1999); United States v. Van Poyck, 77 F.3d 285, 288 (9th Cir.1996) (noting that incriminating statements obtained in violation of Fed.R.Crim.P. 5(a) and 18 U.S.C. § 3501(c) may be excluded by the court’s discretion); United States v. Soto-Soto, 598 F.2d 545, 550 (9th Cir.1979) ("Statutory law was disregarded. Exclusion of the evidence seized is the only available effective deterrent of such disregard.”); cf. United States v. Doe, 862 F.2d 776, 780-81 (9th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Gatto, 763 F.2d 1040, 1046

A: holding that reversal of conviction is required if alien defendant was prejudiced by governments failure to contact his parents and mexican consulate as required by federal juvenile delinquency act
B: holding that the juvenile courts alleged failure to approve by written order the filing of a delinquency petition was a procedural error and not a jurisdictional one and thus could not be attacked collaterally
C: holding that failure to explain allegations and possible consequences was fundamental error that required reversal even though the juvenile had not raised this in his brief
D: holding that failure to give explanation of allegations required reversal
A.