With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". F.3d 1495, 1498 (9th Cir. 1995)). Contacts that are “ ‘isolated’ or ‘sporadic’ may support specific jurisdiction if they create a ‘substantial connection’ with the forum . ...” Id. (quoting Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475, 85 L. Ed. 2d 528, 542, 105 S. Ct. 2174, 2183 (1985)). Nevertheless, “the contacts must be more than random, fortuitous, or attenuated.” Id. In assessing contacts, we look only at those made by the defendant and not those of others related to the case. Id. at 818, 616 S.E.2d at 648. I would hold that Mr. Levine’s contacts, in which he traveled from Tennessee to North Carolina to meet Ms. Stann, necessarily constitute deliberate actions. They are not the “random, fortuitous, or attenuated” actions described in Havey. See id. at 817, 616 S.E.2d at 648 (<HOLDING>). The relationship of Mr. Levine’s actions in

A: holding that a debtor is required to claim any exemptions under north carolina law because north carolina is an opt out state under 11 usc  522b
B: holding that north carolina court lacked personal jurisdiction over illinois bank even though some of its customers resided in north carolina and loan proceeds were used in north carolina
C: holding that the availability of defendant corporations informational passive website in north carolina is not enough contact for purposeful availment
D: holding that because north carolina has opted out of the exemptions provided under 11 usc  522d the exemptions available for bankruptcy debtors in north carolina depend upon the law of north carolina
C.