With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". allegation that “Defendants Vaters and McCollum instituted a culture of revenue-at-all costs, and, along with Milizzano [sic], promoted a variety of other improper revenue recognition practices.” SAC ¶ 152. The plaintiff cannot raise an inference of fraudulent intent based on the signing of a certification without alleging any facts to show a concomitant awareness of or recklessness to the materially misleading nature of the statements. See Glazer Capital Mgmt. v. Magistri, 549 F.3d 736, 747 (9th Cir.2008) (concluding that absent a showing of recklessness, the fact of an officer’s SOX certification is “not sufficient, without more, to raise a strong inference of scienter on the part of [the certifying officer]”); Garfield v. NDC Health Corp., 466 F.3d 1255, 1266 (11th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, defendant Milinazzo’s motion to

A: holding that facts showing scienter are among those that constitute the violation  and must be discovered for a claim to accrue
B: holding certification need not allege specific evidentiary facts which constitute substantial proof of the charge alleged against defendant
C: holding that an officers sox certification alone is not probative of scienter rather the plaintiff must allege facts showing the officer was severely reckless in certifying the accuracy of the financial statements
D: holding that the burden is on the plaintiff to allege facts sufficient to establish jurisdiction
C.