With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". U.S. 614, 622, 118 S.Ct. 1604, 140 L.Ed.2d 828 (1998) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted), quoted in DiSimone v. Phillips, 461 F.3d 181, 190 (2d Cir.2006). Actual innocence is not in issue here; so cause and prejudice analysis is the only route to the merits. “[T]he existence of cause for a procedural default must ordinarily turn on whether the prisoner can show that some objective factor external to the defense impeded ... efforts to comply with the State’s procedural rule.” Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 488, 106 S.Ct. 2639, 91 L.Ed.2d 397 (1986). Because the district court had no occasion to consider whether any objective factor external to Clark impeded her appeal, we could remand for such a determination. See, e.g., McKethan v. Mantello, 292 F.3d 119 (2d Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). But the district court’s conclusion that,

A: holding district court should have abstained pursuant to younger and thus remanding to district court to dismiss without prejudice
B: holding that the district court did not have jurisdiction and remanding the matter to state court
C: holding that claims were procedurally barred through improper exhaustion and remanding for the district court to dismiss on the merits or apply cause and prejudice analysis
D: holding that a habeas claim is procedurally barred where it was already raised on direct appeal and decided on the merits by this court
C.