With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". in the pretrial context,” United States v. Lampley, 127 F.3d 1231, 1245 (10th Cir. 1997). Ms. Portillos claims that she was prosecuted in retaliation for exercising her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination by not cooperating with the government during its investigation of the tax fraud scheme. However, the district court made a factual finding that the decision to prosecute was made based on the evidence, not for refusing to cooperate, 3 R. 179-80, and Ms. Portillos has not explained how that finding constituted clear error. Moreover, even if Ms. Portillos were able to meet her burden of proving vindictiveness, the government has justified its prosecutorial decision with evidence of Ms. Portillos’s guilt. See United States v. Peters, 625 F.2d 366, 369 (10th Cir. 1980) (<HOLDING>). Given probable cause, the decision to

A: holding that a defendants refusal to cooperate during an investigation was insufficient to establish vindictiveness where there was probable cause to charge the defendant
B: holding that there was probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant where the officers corroboration of events that occurred during the controlled buy as set forth in the affidavit provide sufficient probable cause
C: holding that the plaintiff must show that there was a lack of probable cause for the criminal prosecution
D: holding that there was insufficient probable cause for a dui arrest when inter alia there was testimony that the defendants eyes were bloodshot and watery
A.