With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". by clear and convincing evidence. In support of this assertion Hummer cites cases from other circuits which have applied a heightened standard of proof to default sanctions in various circumstances. Maynard v. Nygren, 332 F.3d 462, 468 (7th Cir.2003) (applying clear and convincing evidence standard to Rule 37 dismissal based on willfulness, bad faith, or fault); Aptix Corp. v. Quickturn Design Systems, Inc., 269 F.3d 1369, 1374 (Fed.Cir. 2001) (upholding dismissal based on “extreme litigation misconduct” supported by clear and convincing evidence); Shepherd v. American Broadcasting Cos., 62 F.3d 1469, 1474 (D.C.Cir.1995) (applying clear and convincing evidence standard to default sanctions based on litigation misconduct); Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp., 892 F.2d 1115, 1118 (1st Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>); Pfizer, Inc. v. Int’l Rectifier Corp., 538

A: holding that fraud on the court was demonstrated clearly and convincingly where party had submitted false evidence and concealed authentic evidence
B: holding that it was sufficient that the government submitted unchallenged certified records of conviction and other clearly reliable evidence
C: holding that information showing opportunities for fraud does not itself evidence fraud and that such information together with stray and indiscriminate evidence of false statements was insufficient to put plaintiffs on inquiry notice of the specific frauds alleged
D: holding that evidence not submitted to the district court cannot be part of the record on appeal
A.