With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". an unreasonable application of, established Supreme Court precedent. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court. 1 . Petitioner Hallock did not seek review from the Kansas appellate courts, proceeding instead directly to the United States District Court. Respondents argue that Petitioner failed to exhaust his available state court remedies and, therefore, his appeal must be dismissed. AEDPA amended the exhaustion provisions of § 2254. While § 2254(b)(1) retains the pre-AEDPA requirement that a petition for a writ of habeas corpus may not be granted unless the petitioner has exhausted available state court remedies, § 2254(b)(2) specifically provides that a claim may be denied on the merits notwithstanding a failure to exhaust. See Goodwin v. Oklahoma, 923 F.2d 156, 158 (10th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). The Kansas Supreme Court already decided the

A: recognizing the futility exception to the tribal exhaustion rule
B: recognizing exception to the exhaustion doctrine where the states highest court has explicitly and recently addressed the precise issue advanced by the petitioner
C: recognizing doctrine
D: recognizing but finding inapplicable pure question of law exception to doctrine of exhaustion
B.