With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". This statement was not sufficiently separate from the original stream of profanity to merit a second contempt charge. See Lundy v. State, 596 So.2d 1167, 1168 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (describing how multiple instances of contempt can be “continuous” and therefore subject to only one sanction), receded from on other grounds in Gibbs v. State, 676 So.2d 1001 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). We find the interaction between Appellant and the trial court in this instance to be materially indistinguishable from that described in B.M. v. State, 523 So.2d 1185 (Fla. 2d DCA 198 red by not providing a recital of the facts supporting the adjudication of guilt. See id. (references to “his statements,-demeanor, and behavior”’' are insufficient); see also Johnson v. State, 584 So.2d 95, 96 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (<HOLDING>). Appellant argues that this error should

A: holding that the trial court failed to exercise its discretion in merely stating that the request could not be granted because there was no transcript at this point
B: holding that the trial court failed to exercise its discretion by stating that it did not have the ability to present the transcript to the jury
C: holding that the attachment of a transcript which the court apparently tried but failed to do here is insufficient
D: holding that the lack of evidence that the magistrate judge examined the trial transcript in its sufficiencyoftheevidence analysis left the court no alternative but to reverse the denial of habeas relief and remand for review of the transcript
C.