With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". at 1166. Applying this standard, we held that the following release printed on the back of checks made payable jointly to a subcontractor and its supplier was sufficient to affect a “clear and explicit” waiver of the supplier’s Miller Act rights: ENDORSEMENT OF THIS CHECK BY YOUNGSTOWN WELD ACKNOWLEDGES RECEIPT OF PAYMENT IN FULL FOR ALL OF THE MATERIAL AND/OR LABOR SAID PAYEE HAS PROVIDED UNDER AGREEMENT WITH PROPIPE CORPORATION FOR YUMA DESALTING PLANT UP TO AND INCLUDING THE DATE OF THIS CHECK; RELEASING ANY LIEN, STOP NOTICE, OR BOND RIGHTS SAID PAYEE MIGHT HAVE, REGARDLESS OF THE AMOUNT OF MONEY ACTUALLY RETAINED BY SAID PAY EE OUT OF THE PROCEEDS OF THIS CHECK. Id. at 1165-66 (emphasis added). We concluded that the ab . Fidelity and Guar. Co., 785 F.2d 468, 470-71 (4th Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>); Brogan v. Nat’l Surety Co., 246 U.S. 257,

A: holding that the cost of capital equipment is not recoverable under the terms of the miller act
B: holding that injuries suffered by laborers are not recoverable under the terms of the miller act
C: holding  under the predecessor statute to the miller act  that the cost of food clothing and lodging for laborers is recoverable under the terms of the miller act
D: holding that freight and transportalion charges are not recoverable under the terms of the miller act
A.