### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T Jul y 27, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 04- 15295 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 03 -000 93 -C R -D F -5 U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s J A M E S M A X W E L L , J R ., a .k .a . S o n n y S p o o n , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e M id d le D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( Ju l y 27, 2005) B efo re B IR C H , B A R K E T T an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: Jam es M ax w el l , Jr. ap p eal s h i s co n v i ct i o n s fo r th e fo l l o w i n g th ree co u n t s:2

pos s e s s i on w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e c oc a i ne , avi ol a t i on of 21 U . S . C . §§ 841( a ) ( 1) a n d ( b ) ( 1 ) ( B ) ( i i i ) a n d 1 8 U. S . C . § 2 ; p o s s e s s i o n wi th i n t e n tt o d i s tr i b u t e Nbe nz y l pi pe r a z i ne ( “ B Z P ” ) a nd 1- 3- T r i f l uor om e thy l e ne phe ny l pi pe r a z i ne ( “ T F M P P ” ) , avi ol a t i on of 21 U . S . C . §§ 841( a ) ( 1) a nd ( b) ( 1) ( C ) a nd 18 U . S . C . § 2; a nd pos s e s s i on of

af i r e a rm i n f

ur the r a nc e of

adrug tr a f

f i c ki ng c r i m e , avi ol a t i on of 18 U . S . C . § 924( c ) ( 1) a nd 18 U . S . C . § 2. O n appe a l , M a xw e l l a r gue s tha tthe di stri ctcourterre d w hen i tdeni ed hi s m ot i on t o sup pres s the evi dence s ei ze d du ri ng a tra ff

i c s t op and the re sul t i ng se ar ch of hi s c arbecause they w er e c o n d u c te d w ith o u t p r o b ab le c a u s e . H e f u r th e ra r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d in d en yi n g h i s m o t i o n fo r a j u d g m en to f acq u i tt al as t o th e fi rearm co n v i ct i o n b ecau se the r e w a s i ns uf

f i c i e nte vi de nc e tha the us e d the f i r e a rm “ dur i ng a nd i n r e l a t i on t o” th e d ru g tr a f

f ic k in g o f f e n s e s . F in a lly , M a x w e ll a r g u e s f o rth e f ir s t tim e in h is r e p ly br i e f tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te rr e d w he n i ts e nt e nc e d hi m i n a c c or da nc e w i th the f e de r a l s e nt e nc i ng gui de l i ne s i n vi ol a t i on of U ni ted Stat es v. B oo ke r , 543 U . S . ___, 12 5 S . C t . 73 8, 16 0 L . E d. 2d 62 1 (20 05 ). I. T h e M o ti o n to S u p p ress M a x w e ll a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d in d e n y in g h is m o tio n to s uppr e s s the phy s i c a l e vi de nc e obt a i ne d f r om the tr a f

f i c s t op a nd the r e s ul t i ng s e a r c h o f h is c a rb e c a u s e th e o f

f ic e r s h a d n o r e a s o n ab le s u s p ic io n u p o n w h ic h to3

b ase th e st o p . H e assert s th atth e seatb el tv i o l at i o n w as “ m an u factu red ” t o j u st i fy a tr a f f ic s to p b a s e d o n h is r a c e a n d h is p r e s e n c e in an e ig h b o rh o o d k n o w n f o rits drug ac t i vi ty. M axw el l al so cont ends thatthe offi ce rs had n ei ther are as on abl e, a r tic u lab le s u s p ic io n , n o rc o n s e n t, to d e ta in h im f o rlo n g e rth a n w a s n e c e s s a ry to w ri t e the ci t at i on . In re spon se , the go vernm entar gu es thatO ff i ce r J on es had p r o b ab le c a u s e to e f

f e c tu a te atr a f

f ic s to p b e c a u s e h e o b s e rv e d –a lb e it m is ta k e n ly – M a xw e l l notw e a r i ng hi s s e a tbe l t . R e ga r di ng the dur a t i on of the s t op, the go vernm entar gu es thatthe st op w as re as on abl y prol on ged o nce O ff i ce r J on es lear n ed th at M ax w ell h ad a c o n ce aled an d lo ad ed w ea p o n u n d er n ea th th e d riv er ’s s e a t.

“ A di s tr i c tc our t ’ s rul i ng on am ot i on t o s uppr e s s pr e s e nt s am i xe d que s t i on of l aw and fact . ” U

n ite d S ta te s v . Za

p a ta , 1 8 0 F .3 d 1 2 3 7 , 1 2 4 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) . W e a c c e ptthe di s tr i c tc our t ’ s f i ndi ngs of

f a c tt o be true , unl e s s i ti s s how n t o be cl earl y erro n eo u s, an d rev i ew th e d i stri ctco u rt ’ s ap p l i cat i o n o f th e l aw t o th o se fact s de no vo . I

d. T h e s e f

a c tu a l f in d in g s in c lu d e th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s c r e d ib ility det erm i nat i on s, t o w hi ch w e w i l l “ ac cord consi derabl e def er ence . ” U

ni ted Stat es v. R am i rez- Chi l el , 289 F . 3d 744, 749 ( 11th C i r . 2002) ( i nt e rna l c i t a t i on a nd quot a t i on om i tt e d) . “ [ A ] l l f

a c t s a r e c ons true d i n the l i ghtm os tf a vor abl e t o the pr e va i l i ng party bel ow . ” U

ni te d State s v . B e r v aldi , 2 2 6 F .3 d 1 2 5 6 , 1 2 6 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) .4

“ T he i nd i vi du al chal l engi ng the se ar ch has the bu rdens of proof and p er suas i on . ” U ni ted Stat es v. C oo

per , 1 3 3 F .3 d 1 3 9 4 , 1 3 9 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) . A . T h e L e gal i t y of

t h e S t op T he F ou rth A m endm entprot ec t s i nd i vi du al s f rom “ un re as on abl e s ea rc hes and sei zure s” by go vernm entoffi ci al s, and i t s prot ec t i on s e xt end t o “ bri ef i nv es t i gat ory s t op s of per sons or vehi cl es . ” U n i ted S ta tes v. A rvi

zu , 534 U . S . 266, 273 ( 2002) . F orbr i e f

i nve s t i ga t ory s t ops , the F our th A m e ndm e nti s s a t i s f i e d i f the pol i c e of f i c e rha s a“ r e a s onabl e s us pi c i on” t o be l i e ve tha tc r i m i na l a c t i vi ty “ m a y be af oo t . ” I d. ( c i t i ng T

e r r y v . O h io , 392 U . S . 1, 20 ( 1968) ) . W he n de t e rm i ni ng w he the rr e a s onabl e s us pi c i on e xi s t s , c our t s m us tc ons i de rthe t ot a l i ty of the c i r c um s t a nc e s t o de t e rm i ne w he the rthe pol i c e of f i c e rha d a“ pa r t i c ul a r i z e d a nd o b je c tiv e b a s is ” f

o rs u s p e c te d le g a l w r o n g d o in g . A rvi zu , 534 U . S . a t273 ( c i t a t i on om i tt ed). In so do i ng , “ the re vi ew i ng courtm ustgi ve du e w ei gh tt o the po l i ce offi ce r’ s e xp er i ence . ” U ni te d State s v . B r i

ggm an , 93 1 F . 2d 70 5, 70 9 (11 th C i r. 1 9 9 7 ) . A d e c is io n to s to p av e h ic le is a ls o r e a s o n ab le u n d e rth e F o u r th A m e ndm e ntw he r e a n of f i c e rha s pr obabl e c a us e t o be l i e ve tha tatr a f f i c vi ol a t i on o c c u rr e d . U

ni te d State s v . Si m m ons , 1 7 2 F .3 d 7 7 5 , 7 7 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) . T h e sem i n al case o n th e l eg al i ty o f traffi c st o p s i s W hren v. U

ni ted Stat es , 517 U . S . 806, 819 ( 1996) , i n w hi c h the S upr e m e C our tde c l i ne d t o de vi a t e f r om5

“ the tr a di t i ona l c om m on- l a w rul e tha tpr obabl e c a us e j us t i f i e s as e a r c h a nd s e i z ur e . ” I n othe rw or ds , r e ga r dl e s s of the of f i c e r ’ s s ubj e c t i ve i nt e nta tthe t i m e the tr a f f i c s t op i s m a de , a s l ong a s he ha s “ pr obabl e c a us e t o be l i e ve tha t[ the d e f e n d a n t h a s ] v io la te d th e tr a f f ic c o d e ,” th e s to p w ill b e r e a s o n ab le f o rF o u r th A m e n d m e n t p u rp o s e s . I d. W e c onc l ude tha tO f

f i c e rJ one s w a s r e s pondi ng t o ava l i d “ be on the lo o k o u t” c a ll w h e n h e s to p p e d M a x w e ll, b a s e d o n a n o th e ro f f ic e r ’s r e a s o n ab le su sp icio n th at cr im in al ac ti v ity w as af o o t an d h is k n o w led g e o f th e n eig h b o rh o o d ’s hi st ory of drug act i vi ty. A cc ordi ng l y, the ca l l w as l egal j ust i fi ca t i on for abri ef i nv es t i gat ory s t op un der T erry . N otw i thst andi ng the ca l l , ho w ever , O ff i ce r J on es a l s o be l i e ve d tha tM a xw e l l w a s i n vi ol a t i on of aG e or gi atr a f

f i c l a w , thus gi vi ng hi m another bas i s t o eff ec tuat e al egal st op . E ven tho ug h O ff i ce r J on es l at er adm i tt ed attri al thathi s bel i ef thatM axw el l w as no tw ea ri ng hi s s ea tbel tw as

“ m i s t a ke n, ” s uc h am i s t a ke of f a c tw i l l notvi t i a t e pr obabl e c a us e t o s uppor tthe tr a f f i c s t op. T hus , be c a us e O f f i c e rJ one s w a s r e s pondi ng t o ava l i d “ be on the l oo ko ut ” c al l , and al so ob se rved w hathe tho ug htatthe t i m e t o b e ase atbel tl aw v io la tio n , h e h a d p r o b ab le c a u s e to e f f e c tu a te th e tr a f

f ic s to p . B . T h e D u r at i on of

t h e S t op W e have hel d that , “ [u] nd er T e r r y v . O h io , an offi ce r’ s i nv es t i gat i on of a6

tra ff i c s t op m ustbe ‘ re as on abl y r el at ed i n scope t o the ci rc um st ance s w hi ch j ust i fi ed the i nt er fe re nce i n the fi rs tpl ac e. ’ ” U ni ted Stat es v. B oyce , 351 F . 3d 1102, 1106 ( 11th C i r . 2003) ( c i t i ng T e r r y v . O h io , 392 U . S . 1, 20 ( 1968) ) . T he s to p m u s t b e o f

“lim ite d d u r a tio n ,” a n d m a y n o t la s t “a n y lo n g e rth a n n e c e s s a ry to proces s the tra ff

i c vi ol at i on un l es s there i s a rt i cul abl e s uspi ci on of other i l l egal ac t i vi ty. ” I

d. (c i t at i on om i tt ed). T he du ra t i on of the tra ff i c s t op “ m ustbe l i m i t ed t o the t i m e nec es sa ryt o eff ec tuat e the pu rpose of the st op . ” U ni ted Stat es v. P u r c e ll , 2 3 6 F .3 d 1 2 7 4 , 1 2 7 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) . H o w e v e r , w h e r e th e in itia l tr a f f ic st op i s l egal , the offi ce r has “ the du ty t o i nv es t i gat e s uspi ci ou s c i rc um st ance s that then [com e] t o h i s a tt ent i on . ” U n ite d S ta te s v . H

a r r is , 9 2 8 F .2 d 1 1 1 3 , 1 1 1 7 ( 1 1 th C i r. 19 91 ) ( qu ot at i on om i tt ed). W e c onc l ude tha tthe i nve s t i ga t i on w a s r e a s onabl y r e l a t e d i n s c ope a nd d u r a tio n to th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s th a t le d to th e s to p . See B oyce , 3 5 1 F .3 d a t 1 1 0 6 . W hi l e he w r ot e outthe tr a f f i c c i t a t i on, O f

f i c e rJ one s a s ke d M a xw e l l w he the rhe had any gu ns i n the car i n o rdert o ensure hi s s af ety. M axw el l i nform ed O ff i ce r J one s of hi s gun, w hi c h l e d t o the br i e f s e a r c h of

hi s c a r . B e c a us e the i nve s t i ga t i on a r o s e o u t o f

av a lid tr a f

f ic s to p , th e in v e s tig a tio n in to th e g u n a n d th e s u b s e q u e n t, b r ie f d e te n tio n w e r e v a lid . Id . A c c or di ngl y , be c a us e both the s t op a nd the de t e nt i on w e r e both r e a s onabl e unde rthe F our th A m e ndm e nt , w e a f f i rm the7

d i stri ctco u rt ’ s d en i al o f M ax w el l ’ s m o t i o n t o su p p ress. I I . T h e M ot i on f

or Ju d gm e n t of

A c q u i t t al M a xw e l l ne xtc ont e nds tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te rr e d i n de ny i ng hi s m ot i on f or j udgm e ntof

a c qui tt a l a s t o the f

i r e a rm s c ha r ge be c a us e the r e w a s i ns uf f i c i e nt e vi de nc e tha the us e d the f i r e a rm “ dur i ng a nd i n r e l a t i on t o” the drug tr a f f i c ki ng o f f e n s e s . H e n o te s th a t th e e v id e n c e r e v e a le dth a t th e g u n w a s lo c a te d w e ll be ne a th the dr i ve r ’ s s e a tof hi s c a ra nd tha tthe r e w a s no e vi de nc e tha the t ook the gun outof

the c a rt o us e i ti n c onne c t i on w i th obt a i ni ng the drugs . I n r e s pons e , the g o v er n m en t arg u es th at th e e v id en ce w as su ff icien t t o su stain M ax w ell’ s c o n v ic tio n b e c a u s e th e f ir e a rm ’s p r o x im ity to th e d ru g s w a s n o t m e r e ly c o in c id e n ta l a n d u n r e la te d to th e o f f e n s e . B e c a u s e M a x w e ll w a s a rr e s te d w h ile tr a n s p o r tin g b o th th e d ru g s a n d th e g u n , th e g o v e rn m e n t a r g u e s it w a s r e a s o n ab le for the j ury t o i nferthatM axw el l used the gu n for hi s prot ec t i on w hi l e he obt ai ned a nd m ove d the drugs a nd onc e he r e a c he d hi s de s t i na t i on. W e r e v ie w th e d e n ia l o f am o tio n f

o raju d g m e n t o f

a c q u itta l de no vo . See U ni te d State s v . B ow m an , 30 2 F . 3d 12 28 , 12 37 (11th C i r. 20 02 ). If the evi dence w a s s u f f ic ie n t to s u p p o r t th e c o n v ic tio n , th e n th e m o tio n w a s p r o p e r ly d e n ie d . I d. a t 1 2 3 8 . W e w ill n o t o v e r tu rn aju ry v e r d ic t “s o lo n g a s ar e a s o n ab le ju r o rc o u ld h a v e c o n c lu d e d b e y o n d ar e a s o n ab le d o u b t th a t d e f e n d a n t u s e d th e s e w e ap o n s in8

conn ec t i on w i th the drug tra ff i cki ng offe nse. ” U

n ite d S ta te s v . P o o le , 878 F . 2d 1 3 8 9 , 1 3 9 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 9 ) ( in te rn a l c ita tio n o m itte d ) . S e c t i on 924( c ) pr ovi de s i n r e l e va ntpa r ttha ta n i ndi vi dua l w ho, “ dur i ng a nd in r e la tio n to a n y . . . d ru g tr a f f ic k in g c r im e . . . , u s e s o rc a rr ie s af ir e a rm , s h a ll, in a ddi t i on t o the puni s hm e ntpr ovi de d f ors uc h c r i m e of

vi ol e nc e ordrug tr a f

f i c ki ng c r im e , b e s e n te n c e d to im p r is o n m e n t f o rf iv e y e a r s . . .” 1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 4 ( c ) ( 1 ) . A s a n in itia l m a tte r , w e h a v e h e ld th a t p o s s e s s io n w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te d ru g s q u a lif

ie s a s a“d ru g tr a f

f ic k in g c r im e ” f

o rp u rp o s e s o f

§ 9 2 4 ( c ) . See U

ni ted S ta tes v. R i vera , 8 8 9 F .2 d 1 0 2 9 , 1 0 3 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 9 ) . F u r th e rm o r e , M a x w e ll concedes thatthere w as suff i ci entevi dence t o p rove the “ ca rryi ng ” e l em entof § 9 2 4 ( c ) . T h e r e f

o r e , th e r e m a in in g is s u e is w h e th e rth e r e w a s s u f f ic ie n t e v id e n c e to pr ove tha tthe f

i r e a rm f ound i n M a xw e l l ’ s c a rw a s us e d “ dur i ng a nd i n r e l a t i on t o” th e d ru g tr a f

f ic k in g c r im e . T o e s t abl i s h us e of

af i r e a rm “ dur i ng a nd i n r e l a t i on t o” adrug tr a f f i c ki ng c r i m e f orpurpos e s of

§ 924( c ) , the gove rnm e ntne e d notpr ove tha tthe de f e nda nt

“ fi re d, brandi shed, or even di spl ay ed” the gu n d uri ng the drug tra ff i cki ng offe nse;

“ how e ve r , . . . the m e r e pr e s e nc e of af i r e a rm [ w i l l ] notc ons t i tut e us e w i thi n the m ea ni ng of se ct i on 92 4(c) (1). ” P o o le , 87 8 F . 2d at13 93 . “ R ather, po ss es si on of a f ir e a rm c o n s titu te s u s e in r e la tio n to th e d ru g tr a f f ic k in g o f f e n s e if th e p o s s e s s io n is9

an i nt egra l partof, and faci l i t at es the com m i ss i on of, the drug tra ff i cki ng offe nse. ” I d. M o r e o v e r , “th e p r e s e n c e o f w e ap o n s in alo c a tio n d e f e n d a n t u s e d to d is tr ib u te as i gni f i c a ntqua nt i ty of

i l l e ga l drugs i s s uf

f i c i e ntt o s ubm i tt o the j ury the i s s ue of w hether defe nd antused the fi re arm s i n con nect i on w i th a drug tra ff i cki ng cr i m e. ” I d. F ore xa m pl e , i n P o o le , 878 F . 2d a t1393- 94, w he n c ons i de r i ng w he the rthe d e f e n d a n th a d u s e d th e f

i r e a rm “ d u r i n g a n d i n r e l a t i o n t o ” th e d ru g o f f e n s e , we no t ed thatthe evi dence s up po rt ed the i nfer ence s that“ [the defendant ] w as engaged i n s e l l i ng c oc a i ne ; the guns w e r e us e d t o pr ot e c tthe hous e m e m be r s a nd the co cai n e; an d [th e d efen d an t ] k n ew th e g u n s w ere read i l y accessi b l e. ” A cco rd i n g l y, w e he l d tha tar e a s onabl e j ury c oul d ha ve f ound tha tthe de f

e nda ntus e d the guns d u r in g a n d in r e la tio n to h e rc o c a in e tr a f f ic k in g . I d. (not i ng thatw hi l e the evi dence w a s “ f a rf r om ove rw he l m i ng, ” i tw a s s uf f i c i e nti n l i ghtof

ourde f e r e nt i a l tr e a tm e nt o f ju ry v e r d ic ts ) . H e r e , the t e s t i m ony tha tM a xw e l l w a s i n pos s e s s i on of l a r ge a m ount s of c oc a i ne , B Z P , a nd T F M P P s uppor t s the i nf e r e nc e tha the pos s e s s e d thos e drugs w i th the i nt entt o d i stri bu t e them . A l so, the j ury r ea sonabl y c ou l d h ave i nferre d th atth e l o ad ed g u n , w h i ch w as d i sco v ered u n d er M ax w el l ’ s seatan d i n cl o se prox i m i ty t o the drug s on the backsea t , w as “ re adi l y a cc es si bl e. ” Se e id . L i kew i se ,In his reply brie f, Maxwe ll a ssert s th at Booker was not available to him when he f iled 1 his init ial appellatebrief. H is init ial brief, how ever , was date-stamped January 19, 2005, and the Booker op ini on wa s re le a se d Jan

ua ry 12 , 2 00 5. Mo re ov er, Maxwe ll did not m akere ferenc ein his init ial brief to Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000) or Blakely v. W ashington , 254 U.S. __ (2004), both of which areprede cessor case s to Booker . 10 th e ju ry c o u ld h a v e c o n c lu d e d th a t M a x w e ll’s in te n tio n w a s to u s e th e g u n , if n e c e s s a ry , to p r o te c t th e d ru g s a n d h im s e lf w h ile h e tr a n s p o r te d th e m . I d. T h u s, th e e v id en ce w as su ff

icien t, ev en if n o t o v er w h elm in g , t o su p p o rt M ax w ell’ s c o n v ic tio n f

o rav io la tio n o f

§ 9 2 4 ( c ) . A c c o r d in g ly , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t p r o p e r ly d e n i e d M a x w e l l ’ s mo t i o n f o raj u d g me n to f

a c q u i tt a l , a n d w e a f

f i rm. II I. T h e B oo kerC la im I n h is r e p ly b r ie f

, M a x w e ll a r g u e s f

o rth e f ir s t tim e th a t h is s e n te n c e s h o u ld be va c a t e d i n l i ghtof

the U . S . S upr e m e C our t ’ s de c i s i on i n U ni ted Stat es v. B oo ke r , 54 3 U . S . ___, 12 5 S . C t . 73 8, 16 0 L . E d. 2d 62 1 (20 05 ). M axw el l no t es 1 tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te xpr e s s e d a thi s s e nt e nc i ng tha tthe gui de l i ne s ’ pe na l t i e s f or h is d ru g o f

f e n s e s w e r e “p r e tty s tif

f .” H e u r g e s u s to r e m a n d f o rr e - s e n te n c in g in l i gh tof the di stri ctcourt ’ s c om m ent s a nd i n l i gh tof B oo ke r . W e have consi st ent l y hel d thatan i ss ue no tra i se d i n an p arty’ s i ni t i al appe l l a t e br i e f

i s c ons i de r e d w a i ve d, a nd the pa r ty i s pr ohi bi t e d f r om r a i s i ng the is s u e la te rin th e ap p e a l. Se e U ni te d State s v . N

j au , 3 8 6 F .3 d 1 0 3 9 , 1 0 4 1 - 4 2 ( 1 1 th C i r. 20 04 ) ( re fusi ng t o con si der acl ai m un der B lakel y fi rs tra i se d i n a l ett er11

s u b m itte d p u r s u a n t to F e d . R . A p p . P . 2 8 ( j) ) ; U ni ted Stat es v. L ev

y , 379 F . 3d 1241, 12 42 -43 (11 th C i r. 20 04 ) ( re fusi ng t o con si der a B la ke ly c l a i m f i r s tr a i s e d i n a p et i t i o n fo r reh eari n g ). A cco rd i n g l y, b ecau se M ax w el l rai ses th i s B oo ke ri s s ue f or the f i r s tt i m e i n hi s r e pl y br i e f , he ha s w a i ve d the a r gum e nta nd m a y notr a i s e i ton ap p e a l. F o r th e fo reg o i n g reaso n s, w e affi rm M ax w el l ’ s co n v i ct i o n s o n al l co u n t s. A F F I R M E D .