With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". than that which the defendant seeks to foreclose from consideration.” Id. at 120, 129 S.Ct. 2360 (quoting Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436, 444, 90 S.Ct. 1189, 25 L.Ed.2d 469 (1970)). “In a criminal case, a defendant seeking to invoke collateral estoppel bears the burden of demonstrating that the issue he seeks to foreclose was actually decided in the first proceeding.” United States v. Rigas, 605 F.3d 194, 217 (3d Cir.2010). Furthermore, issue preclusion only applies when the issue determined by the jury in the first trial is an “ultimate issue” in the retrial — that is, the issue necessarily decided must be an issue which the government must prove in the second trial beyond a reasonable doubt. See Dowling v. United States, 493 U.S. 342, 348-49, 110 S.Ct. 668, 107 L.Ed.2d 708 (1990) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Console, 13 F.3d 641, 664

A: holding that the doctrine of promissory estoppel did not apply where promise was supported by bargained for consideration
B: holding that the doctrine of collateral estoppel applies when an issue of ultimate fact has necessarily been determined by a valid final judgment
C: recognizing the doctrine of collateral estoppel in agency proceedings
D: holding that the estoppel doctrine did not apply because unlike the situation in ashe v swenson the prior acquittal did not determine an ultimate issue in the present case
D.