With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 419, 434-38, 115 S.Ct. 1555, 131 L.Ed.2d 490 (1995); Manning, 56 F.3d at 1198 (“Evidence is material for Brady purposes only if there is a reasonable probability that, had it been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different.”). In United States v. Flores, 540 F.2d 432 (9th Cir.1976), we held that a request “to disclose the names and numbers of the prior cases in which the informant [ ] had testified on behalf of the government” was not material based only on “a hunch” that the informant may have tampered with evidence in other cases. Id. at 437-38. Similarly, Abonce-Barrera has offered nothing to support his proposed fishing expedition beyond stating that it might have been useful. See also United States v. Cutler, 806 F.2d 933, 935 (9th Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>). Abonce-Barrera’s insistence that he should

A: holding that informants identity should not be revealed where informant witnessed unrelated crime and reported it to the police who then only used the information to create probable cause for a search warrant
B: holding that an informants identity does not need to be disclosed unless the defendant demonstrates a reasonable possibility that the anonymous informant could give evidence on the issue of guilt or innocence which might result in the defendants exoneration
C: holding that additional detailed information about a previous unrelated investigation involving an informant could be withheld after balancing the governments interest in insuring the informants safety
D: holding that a known informants statement can support probable cause even though the affidavit fails to provide any additional basis for the known informants credibility
C.