With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". entitled to acceptance of responsibility on Count II. After fully reviewing the record, we cannot say that the decision to deny King the reduction for acceptance of responsibility was “without foundation” or clearly erroneous. III. CONCLUSION For the reasons enumerated above, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 1 . The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. 2 . The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment provides that "[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” 3 . King's contention that his rights under the Confrontation Clause were violated by the admission of this testimony is subject to this rule as well. See Watson, 952 F.2d at 987 (<HOLDING>). 4 . Our holding that the admission of the

A: holding that outofcourt statements that are offered to explain a police investigation are neither hearsay nor violative of the confrontation clause
B: holding outofcourt statements relating to reasons for investigation are not admissible where the reasons for the investigation are not at issue
C: holding that when declarant is unavailable outofcourt statements that are testimonial are inadmissible even if they meet an exception to the hearsay rules
D: holding that certain outofcourt statements offered to explain the course of police conduct may be admissible because they are not offered for the truth of the matters asserted but rather to show the information upon which the police acted the trial court must balance the prosecutions need for the statements against any prejudice arising therefrom
A.