With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". or commentary which restricts application of § 3C1.1 only to situations in which the defendant directly threatens a witness or communicates the threat to a third party with the likelihood that it will in turn be communicated to the witness.”); United States v. Bradford, 277 F.3d 1311, 1314-15 (11th Cir.2002) (expressly rejecting the holding in Brooks and concluding that communicating a threat directly to a witness is not required to support application of the obstruction-of-justice enhancement); United States v. Jackson, 974 F.2d 104, 106 (9th Cir.1992) (“Where a defendant’s statements can be reasonably construed as a threat, even if they are not made directly to the threatened person, the defendant has obstructed justice.”); United States v. Capps, 952 F.2d 1026, 1028 (8th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Shoulberg, 895 F.2d 882,

A: recognizing that it is not essential for there to be a direct threat of litigation in order to invoke the declaratory judgment act
B: holding that to be actionable the words must be communicated or published to someone other than the plaintiff
C: holding that because  3c11 applies to attempts to obstruct justice it is not essential that the threat be communicated to the target
D: holding that the question of recusal of a supreme court justice is to be left to the individual justice
C.