With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Health Care Fraud Information No. 09-CR421, which charged him with health care fraud of $2.9 million. The Government contends petitioner’s claim is meritless as he was never prosecuted for the health care fraud violations in 1999 because he fled the jurisdiction on the date of his scheduled court appearance. Therefore, the 2009 N.D.N.Y. prosecution was the first time any jeopardy could attach to the petitioner’s prosecution. The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment states that no person shall “be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” U.S. Const, amend. V. The Double Jeopardy Clause affords a defendant protection from: (1) a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal; (2) a second prosecution for the same offense af Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). Petitioner failed to appear in the M.D. Fla.

A: holding that the dismissal of criminal charges for evidentiary insufficiency is an acquittal for purposes of the double jeopardy clause
B: recognizing that an indictment must contain the elements of the offense charged fairly inform a defendant of the charge and enable the defendant to plead double jeopardy as a defense in a future prosecution for the same offense
C: holding that defendant did not have standing to raise facial challenge to validity of aggravated assault statutes for their risk of creating double jeopardy grounds because he himself was not charged in way that created double jeopardy
D: holding that in order for a pretrial dismissal to trigger the protections of the double jeopardy clause there must be an adjudication of elements of the offense charged in a way that reflected a genuine risk of conviction
D.