With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". In the State’s view, because these issues “predate the presumptive period of prejudice which began on February 19, 2011 [,]” they are attributed to the initial filing of the indictment and not to any delay in prosecuting the case. As we noted earlier in this Opinion, Defendant testified, and the court found, that the medical and employment adversities continued through the date of the October 19, 2012, evidentiary hearing. Indeed, according to Defendant, some of her stress-related maladies worsened over time. Thus, even accounting for the anxiety naturally associated with the filing of criminal charges, we are not persuaded the district court erred in concluding that Defendant’s extended period of suffering from stress and anxiety was “undue.” See Valencia, 2010-NMCA-005, ¶ 29 (<HOLDING>). {56} Defendant’s anxiety, loss of employment,

A: recognizing inherent power of courts of appeals
B: holding there was no constitutional requirement that the administrative hearing be postponed pending disposition of the criminal charges
C: recognizing the inherent anxiety associated with pending criminal charges
D: recognizing the inherent policy problems associated with applying issue preclusion to permanent disability proceedings and construing wyomings workers compensation act as inconsistent with the doctrine in that context
C.