With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". state court’s decision constituted an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. The district court concluded that admission of DNA test results as business records deprived Valentine of his rights under the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause. We conclude that the state appellate court’s determination that the DNA test results had sufficient indicia of reliability to satisfy the Confrontation Clause was a reasonable application of the clearly established law of Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 65-66, 100 S.Ct. 2531, 65 L.Ed.2d 597, (1980). Under Roberts, business records are generally considered sufficiently reliable to survive a Confrontation Clause challenge. 448 U.S. at 66 n. 8, 100 S.Ct. 2531; see also United States v. Miller, 830 F.2d 1073, 1077 (9th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>). The record at issue was prepared in the

A: holding prior statement subject to crossexamination when made does not violate confrontation clause
B: holding that doctrine does not violate right of confrontation
C: holding that admission of business records does not violate the confrontation clause under roberts
D: holding coconspirator hearsay exception does not violate confrontation clause
C.