With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". California, Sacramento Division. In this action, plaintiffs sought to compel the BIA to issue a decision on the pending appeals. Because the BIA indicated that it would issue its decision, that case was dismissed as moot. 4 . Plaintiffs erroneously argue that this Court may apply a lesser standard than that set forth in Winter v. Nat’l Res. Def. Council, Inc., -U.S.-, 129 S.Ct. 365, 375, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008). In considering preliminary injunctions after Winter, Ninth Circuit cases have unanimously rejected this notion. See e.g., Am. Trucking Ass’ns. Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir.2009) ("To the extent that our cases have suggested a lesser standard, they are no longer controlling, or even viable.”); Stormans Inc. v. Selecky, 571 F.3d 960, 977 (9th Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>); Cal. Pharmacists Ass’n v. Maxwell-Jolly, 563

A: recognizing that this test applies in every federal circuit save the fourth and the ninth
B: recognizing that the winter court rejected the ninth circuit sliding scale test because it was too lenient
C: holding that district court error was not clear error because no prior ninth circuit authority prohibited the course taken by the district court
D: holding that the district court erred when it relied on neuschafer for the proposition that dismissal of mixed habeas petitions is not the rule in the ninth circuit
B.