With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". July 14, 2010, awarding it damages of $150,000 and denying its claim for punitive damages. The judgment was entered following the jury’s award of $150,000 in damages to Edible Arrangements and the denial, by the district court in a memorandum decision entered May 25, 2010, of its motion for punitive damages. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal. “We review a district court’s decision not to award punitive damages for abuse of discretion.” Ragin v. Harry Macklowe Real Estate Co., 6 F.3d 898, 909 (2d Cir.1993) (citing McCann v. Coughlin, 698 F.2d 112, 127 (2d Cir.1983)). See also Browning-Ferris Indus. of Vt., Inc. v. Kelco Disposal, Inc., 492 U.S. 257, 279, 109 S.Ct. 2909, 106 L.Ed.2d 219 (1989) (<HOLDING>). Edible Arrangements’ claim that the district

A: holding that courts of appeals should review all aspects of the district courts rule 11 determination for abuse of discretion and noting that the district court has broad discretion to impose rule 11 sanctions
B: holding that a court of appeals should review de novo a district courts determination of state law
C: holding court of appeals should review district courts determination regarding punitive damages under abuseofdiscretion standard
D: holding a court may not award punitive damages
C.