With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". entertainment under the above sections. Defendants argue that under United States v. Kozminski, 487 U.S. 931, 108 S.Ct. 2751, 101 L.Ed.2d 788 (1988), the government cannot charge them under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 245, because Kozminski holds that 18 U.S.C. § 241 “prohibit[s] only intentional interference with rights made specific either by the express terms of the Federal Constitution or laws or by decisions interpreting them.” Kozminski, 487 U.S. at 941, 108 S.Ct. at 2759. The argument is without force, because 18 U.S.C. § 245 expressly defines the rights at issue in that statute, and 42 U.S.C. § 2000a expressly defines the federal right which was at issue in the 18 U.S.C. § 241 conspiracy. See United States v. Johnson, 390 U.S. 563, 563-66, 88 S.Ct. 1231, 1232-34, 20 L.Ed.2d 132 (1968)(<HOLDING>). The district court held that the two video

A: holding that 18 usc  241 and 42 usc  3631 fall within separate exception to rav
B: holding that 18 usc  241 and 42 usc  3631 fall within a separate exception to rav
C: holding that a sentencing court is required by 18 usc  3583g to revoke the defendants term of supervised release  unless defendant could come under the exception in 18 usc  3583d
D: holding that interference with the right to service in a restaurant is chargeable under 18 usc  241
D.