With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". hearing into a trial on the merits. Pipitone v. Biomatrix, Inc., 288 F.3d 239, 250 (5th Cir.2002). In this regard, courts have sensibly held that a district court has broad discretion in deciding how to resolve a Daubert challenge. In particular, a hearing is not necessary in all cases, as the submissions of the parties may provide a sufficient basis to determine if the proffered testimony is admissible. See Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 142, 119 S.Ct. 1167, 143 L.Ed.2d 238 (1999) (noting that a district court has “the same broad latitude when it decides how to determine [the] reliability [of expert testimony] as it enjoys in respect to its ultimate reliability determination”) (emphasis in original); see also United States v. Beasley, 495 F.3d 142, 150 (4th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). III. A. Testimony of George Robbins The

A: holding that a district courts decision on whether to hold a daubert hearing is reviewed only for abuse of discretion
B: holding that the imposition of sanctions is reviewed for abuse of discretion
C: recognizing that the decision of whether to give a jury instruction is reviewed for abuse of discretion
D: holding that district courts decisions about the propriety of hearing declaratory judgment actions  should be reviewed for abuse of discretion
A.