With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". who assaults ... his or her spouse ... is guilty of a misdemean- or....” Because the record is incomplete as to what evidence was introduced at Sanders’ criminal trial, we cannot determine whether anything obtained as a result of the allegedly unlawful entry was essential to Sanders’ subsequent conviction. A remand is therefore necessary for further factual developments as to Heck’s applicability. Probable Cause Hearing Sanders’ second claim, that he was not afforded a prompt probable cause hearing, is unaffected by Heck, as that claim is for “monetary damages for a constitutional violation unrelated to [the plaintiff’s] ultimate conviction of the substantive offense.” Alkire v. Irving, 330 F.3d 802, 816 n. 10 (6th Cir.2003); Buckenberger v. Reed, 342 Fed.Appx. 58, 63 (5th Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>). Indeed, in Gerstein v. Pugh, the case which

A: recognizing the range of discretion of the trial judge
B: holding that the fourth amendment does not mandate payment and therefore such claims are not within the jurisdiction of the court
C: holding such claims fall within the narrow range of cases that are not barred by heck because a determination of the timeliness of the plaintiffs probable cause hearing will not affect the validity of his conviction
D: holding that claims arising under the sixth amendment fall outside the jurisdiction of the court of federal claims
C.