With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". proponent’s case to the adopter's case.” United States v. David, 940 F.2d 722, 737 (1st Cir.1991). The case against Mercado-Cruz was markedly stronger than the case against Rivera-Rodríguez. 22 . We express no opinion on whether an ineffective assistance of counsel claim in a habeas corpus petition could have its basis in a counsel's actions as to waiver of the procedural requirements of § 851(a). No such claim is part of this appeal. 23 . Mercado-Cruz did not argue that he did not own any street clothes or that he lacked the resources to obtain them. Thus, we need not decide, as some circuits have, whether a defendant in such a situation would be constitutionally entitled to have the court provide street clothing for him. See, e.g., Bentley v. Crist, 469 F.2d 854, 856 (9th Cir.1972) (<HOLDING>). 24 . Through his counsel and his pro-se

A: holding unconstitutional a requirement that defendant appear in prison garb at trial
B: holding a prisoner has no constitutional right to a job in prison
C: holding that a pro se prisoner complaint is deemed filed as of the date the prisoner gives the complaint to prison officials to be forwarded to the court
D: holding that an accused who is forced to stand trial in prison garb because of financial inability to obtain other attire is under a compulsion equal to that of the prisoner who is not allowed to don readily available civilian attire
D.