With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". obstructed justice in giving what it characterized as false and misleading testimony at the first trial and the suppression hearing that preceded the first trial. Wood responded that the conviction that was obtained after the first trial was overturned on appeal, and could not be used to enhance a sentence imposed after a separate trial where he did not testify. Wood also argued that the fact that the jury chose not to credit his testimony during the first trial did not render that testimony perjurious. During the sentencing hearing, the district court sustained the government’s objection to the PSI, finding that Wood had given false testimony at his first trial and suppression hearing. The district court relied on United States v. Has No Horse, 42 F.3d 1158, 1159-1160 (8th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). The district court stated that the

A: holding that a defendants attempt to obstruct justice does not disappear merely because his conviction has been reversed on grounds having nothing to do with the obstruction
B: holding that because plaintiff could not demonstrate that his conviction had been reversed or set aside on grounds of innocence plaintiff failed to meet the threshold for any potential recovery under 28 usc  1495 and 2513
C: holding that the effects of a conviction including limitations on future employment were not adequate grounds for expunction but were instead the natural consequence of having been convicted
D: holding that where juror did not disclose that she had an interest in the conviction of the defendant probable prejudice is shown and the conviction must be reversed
A.