With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". would entitle them to relief, the district court dismissed the four counts of the amended complaint. The district court dealt with the conspiracy issue in a footnote: "Because of the legal inadequacies of the allegations, we need not reach the conspiracy question.” R. 248 at 26 n. 11. 6 . See also Brubaker v. City of Richmond, 943 F.2d 1363, 1376 (4th Cir.1991) (noting that appellate court must consider whether signer’s position was objectively reasonable at time complaint was filed, not whether district court’s judgment on the merits was correct). 7 . See Danvers v. Danvers, 959 F.2d 601, 604 (6th Cir.1992) (recognizing "action that could be properly dismissed for failure to state a claim, which nonetheless would not warrant the imposition of sanctions”); Brubaker, 943 F.2d at 1373 (<HOLDING>). 8 . Furthermore, the County did not argue

A: holding that based on the facts presented by the state and the defendants stipulation to the existence of a factual basis for his plea the court properly determined a factual basis for the plea existed
B: holding that when a respondent fails to challenge factual allegations contained in a petition for the writ of mandamus the appellate court accepts as true the factual statements in the petition
C: holding rule 1 ls factual inquiry requirement violated only when no factual basis for allegations
D: holding that factual basis inquiry is one way of satisfying the constitutional requirement that a guilty plea be voluntary and intelligent but it is not mandated by due process
C.