With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". activities, Pyles is not entitled to habeas relief based upon the state’s failure to produce this evidence because it is not material. LaCour testified at trial that he was on unadjudicated probation for burglary, was currently incarcerated for two pending burglary charges to which he intended to plead guilty, and had a conviction for bank larceny. He also testified that he is a heroin addict and that he worked as an informant while on federal probation. Additionally, as noted earlier, LaCour acknowledged on cross-examination that his testimony was motivated in part — if not entirely' — by the prospect that he would receive help from prosecutors in obtaining a lenient sentence on his burglary charges. Banschenbach testified that he had prior convictio 179, 1181 (10th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). The district court therefore properly denied

A: holding prior drug deals admissible to prove knowledge of the drug trade
B: holding that the prosecutions failure to disclose information regarding a witnesss past cooperation with law enforcement did not constitute a brady violation in light of other impeachment evidence in the record including testimony regarding the witnesss extensive drug use and past cooperation with the dea
C: holding that trial court did not err in refusing to allow defendant to introduce evidence of witnesss pending indictment when witnesss testimony regarding defendants participation in murder was virtually identical to witnesss written statement which was sworn to on day of murder and prior to offense for which witness was indicted
D: holding that the governments failure to disclose a deal whereby it dismissed a drug indictment against a witness who was crucial to the governments case was immaterial in light of testimony regarding the witnesss prior felony convictions extensive involvement in the drug trade and past informant activity
D.