With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". that Edmonds waived his objections to the striking of Ashe and Smith by requesting the trial court to reseat only juror Nelson. On the merits, the State does not dispute the trial court’s finding as to Nelson but argues that the trial court implicitly found that Ashe and Smith were struck for race-neutral, non-pretextual reasons, that the court’s finding was not clearly erroneous, and that the trial court appropriately remedied any harm by seating Nelson. III. We turn to the State’s argument that petitioner waived his Batson argument. The State contends that because petitioner asked for one remedy and received the relief he requested—the reseating of Nelson—he cannot now challenge the court’s remedial actions. See Klauenberg v. State, 355 Md. 528, 545, 735 A.2d 1061, 1070 (1999)(<HOLDING>). We hold that petitioner did not waive

A: holding there is no right to a specific dollar remedy
B: holding that where specific grounds for an objection are stated at trial all other grounds are waived and will not be considered for the first time on appeal
C: holding that the defendant who was indicted for first degree rape and convicted of sexual battery had no remedy on appeal when he requested that the erroneous lesser nonincluded charge be submitted to the jury
D: holding there are no grounds to appeal when defendant receives the remedy he requested from the trial court
D.