With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". represent conflicting interests; that Mitchell’s representation of Williams did not have an adverse effect on Mitchell’s representation of Chambers; and that Mitchell did not have a conflict of interest while representing Chambers. We observe that the Supreme Court has not held that the standard applied by the state court applies to claims of successive representation conflicts. See Mickens v. Taylor, 535 U.S. 162, 176, 122 S.Ct. 1237, 152 L.Ed.2d 291 (2002) (declining to decide whether to extend standard for multiple concurrent representation conflicts in Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 100 S.Ct. 1708, 64 L.Ed.2d 333 (1980)— conflict actually affected adequacy of representation—to successive representation conflicts); but see Perillo v. Johnson, 205 F.3d 775, 797-98 (5th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). Even assuming that the state court

A: holding teague applies to capital cases
B: holding that cuyler standard applies to all multiple representation conflicts whether concurrent or successive under preaedpa law and holding teague bar inapplicable
C: holding that strickland applies to cases involving successive representation
D: holding that conflicts of constitutional magnitude can arise from cases of successive representation
B.