With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". in Peabody fits the government’s glove, a reading of that case clearly demonstrates that the proposition for which it stands is total dicta, and is not based on even a superficial analysis of the issues raised in the present appeal. Indeed that opinion does not even cite § 952(a), although it may perhaps be surmised that such is the statute at issue. Nevertheless, nothing in the factual background of that case supports the proposition relied upon by the government. Without question the contraband in Peabody was not coming from another domestic area in the United States, Texas or otherwise, and thus the court’s hyperbole was pure dicta. Peabody and its progeny constitute flimsy precedent upon which to hang one’s hat. In United States v. Phillips, 664 F.2d 971, 1033 (5th Cir.1981) (<HOLDING>), the facts involved contraband brought

A: holding inter alia that a united states court retains jurisdiction over persons arrested on a foreign ship beyond the us navigable waters when said arrest violates a treaty to which the united states and the foreign country are parties
B: holding that the importation element may be established by evidence that a boat from which marihuana was unloaded went outside united states territorial waters or met with any other vessels that had  for example a mother ship
C: holding that wetlands adjacent to navigable waters are included in the term territorial waters
D: holding that united states admiralty jurisdiction extended not only to the high seas but also to american vessels in foreign waters
B.