With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". his counsel did introduce evidence in support of Mr. Escareno’s theory that the hospital records did not corroborate all of the victim’s alleged injuries, and admission of the hospital records would not have altered the result of the proceeding because there was substantial, compelling witness testimony corroborating the extent of the victim’s injuries when she was in the hospital and the day after her release, see Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), and (b) his counsel’s performance did not so deny Mr. Escareno representation that prejudice should be presumed; and (4) the prosecutor’s closing argument comments, taken in context, were within the bounds of reasonable argumentation, see Pickens v. Gibson, 206 F.3d 988, 999 (10th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). Issuance of a COA is jurisdictional.

A: holding the prosecutors statements were not an inappropriate comment on the defendants failure to testify but rather a comment on the defendants failure to present convincing evidence to support his defense
B: holding that disagreements over whether to call certain witnesses did not constitute a conflict of interest
C: holding that the failure to call certain witnesses was not ineffective assistance because witnesses already presented similar evidence and counsel is not required to present cumulative evidence
D: holding that prosecutor free to comment on defendants failure to call certain witnesses or present certain testimony
D.