With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". We have not previously addressed the standard under which we review a district court’s determination of when a person’s motive to testify falsely arose within the meaning of Rule 801(d)(1)(B). Although the question of when a motive arose is an issue of fact, ordinarily reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard, United States v. Percy, 250 F.3d 720, 725 (9th Cir.2001), we join our sister circuits and hold that we review a district court’s determination of admissibility under Rule 801(d)(1)(B) for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Prieto, 232 F.3d 816, 819, 822 (11th Cir.2000); United States v. Roach, 164 F.3d 403, 411 (8th Cir.1998); United States v. Fulford, 980 F.2d 1110, 1114 (7th Cir.1992); see also United States v. Hernandez-Herrera, 273 F.3d 1213, 1217 (9th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). Federal Rule of Evidence 801(c) defines

A: holding that the imposition of sanctions is reviewed for abuse of discretion
B: holding that the dismissal of a frivolous action reviewed for abuse of discretion
C: holding that the admission of evidence under an exception to the hearsay rule is reviewed for abuse of discretion
D: recognizing that a district courts dismissal of an independent action under rule 60b is reviewed for abuse of discretion
C.