With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". — U.S.-, 127 S.Ct. 1933, 1939, 167 L.Ed.2d 836 (2007). We defer to the state court’s factual findings unless Blanton rebuts those findings with clear and convincing evidence. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1); Schriro, 127 S.Ct. at 1939-40. In reviewing the district court’s application of § 2254(d) to the state court decision, we review the district court’s findings of fact for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo. See, e.g., Foster v. Johnson, 293 F.3d 766, 776 (5th Cir.2002). Ill Blanton’s ineffective assistance arguments, regarding both trial and appellate counsel, are governed by the Supreme Court’s clearly established standard in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). See Henderson v. Quarterman, 460 F.3d 654, 665 (5th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). Strickland provides a two-pronged standard,

A: recognizing that strickland applies to ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claims
B: holding that the strickland test applies to claims  that counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to file a notice of appeal
C: recognizing a constitutional claim for ineffective assistance of counsel
D: holding strickland two prong test applies to ineffective assistance claims throughout trial including punishment
A.