With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (citing Johnson, 520 U.S. at 466-67, 117 S. Ct. at 1548-49; Haag v. State, 117 P.3d 775, 782 (Alaska App. 2005)); Ned v. State, 119 P.3d 438, 443 (Alaska App. 2005) (citing Johnson, 520 U.S. 461, 117 S. Ct. 1544; U.S. v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 122 S. Ct. 1781 (2002)); State v. LaClair, 433 A.2d 1326, 1328-29 (N.H. 1981); State v. Cross, 234 P.3d 288 (Wash. App. Div. 2 2010); State v. Holder, 745 P.2d 141 (Ariz. 1987); People v. Lann, 633 N.E.2d 938 (Ill. App. 1st Dist. 1994); State v. Hutchinson, 342 S.E.2d 138 (W. Va. 1986); Poole v. State, 846 So. 2d 370 (Ala. Crim. App. 2001); U.S. v. Deitz, 577 F.3d 672, 687-88 (6th Cir. 2009) (no plain error in a case in which the defendant failed to preserve the question for appellate review); People v. Woods, 331 N.W.2d 707, 725 (Mich. 1982) (<HOLDING>); McBee v. Grant, 763 F.2d 811 (6th Cir. 1985);

A: holding that aedpa is not applied retroactively to pending habeas petitions
B: holding that batson does apply retroactively to cases pending on direct review
C: holding that a new rule for the conduct of criminal prosecutions is to be applied retroactively to all cases  pending on direct review  with no exception for cases in which the new rule constitutes a clear break with the past
D: holding sandstrom v mont 442 us 510 99 s ct 2450 1979 would be retroactively applied to pending cases where error was properly raised and preserved
D.