With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Partners, Ltd. v. Miccosukee Tribe, 177 F.3d 1212, 1224 (11th Cir.1999). A). United States v. James Daniel Good In United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property, the Supreme Court declared for the first time that in the context of civil forfeiture, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment requires the government to provide the owner of real property notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard before it seizes property, absent a showing of exigent circumstances. See 510 U.S. at 59, 114 S.Ct. 492. We note that Good applies retroactively to this case because the government did not dismiss its civil forfeiture action against defendant Properties until after Good was decided. See Harper v. Virginia Dep’t of Taxation, 509 U.S. 86, 96-99, 113 S.Ct. 2510, 125 L.Ed.2d 74 (1993) (<HOLDING>); United States v. 2751 Peyton Woods Trail,

A: holding that new rules of law apply to pending civil cases on direct appeal regardless of whether events predate announcement of rule
B: holding that batson does apply retroactively to cases pending on direct review
C: holding that when the supreme court applies a rule of federal law to the parties before it that rule is the controlling interpretation of federal law and must be given full retroactive effect in all civil cases still open on direct review and as to all events regardless of whether such events predate or postdate the supreme courts announcement of the rule
D: holding that when the supreme court applies a rule of federal law to the parties before it that rule is the controlling interpretation of federal law and must be given full retroactive effect in all cases still open on direct review and as to all events regardless of whether such events predate or postdate our announcement of the rule
A.