With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". States v. Garcia, 179 F.3d 265, 269 (5th Cir.1999) (“[T]he requisite ‘fair probability’ is something more than a bare suspicion, but need not reach the fifty percent mark.”); United States v. Limares, 269 F.3d 794, 798 (7th Cir.2001) (“ ‘[P]robable cause’ is something less than a preponderance.”); United States v. Donnelly, 475 F.3d 946, 954 (8th Cir.2007) (“Probable cause ... does not require ... evidence demonstrating that it is more likely than not that the suspect committed a crime.”) (quotations omitted). And several of our sister circuits have upheld searches involving dogs with track records on par with this one. See Limares, 269 F.3d at 798 (62% accuracy rate suffices to demonstrate probable cause); United States v. Anderson, 367 Fed.Appx. 30, 33 (11th Cir. 2010) (unpublished) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Koon Chung Wu, 217 Fed.Appx.

A: holding dog was reliable with a 55 accuracy rate
B: holding that once a rate is filed with the appropriate agency except for review of the agencys orders the courts can assume no right to a different rate on that ground that in its opinion it is the only or the more reasonable rate
C: holding that evidence was sufficiently reliable because there was corroboration
D: holding that the addition of a enough cereal to dog food to place it in a tariff provision with a lower rate of duty was within the importers right to fashion merchandise to obtain a lower rate of duty
A.