With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 555 (1991); see also id. at 649, 111 S.Ct. 2491 (Scalia, J., concurring). 44 . Id. at 630, 111 S.Ct. 2491. 45 . Id. at 630-31, 111 S.Ct. 2491. 46 . Id. at 631, 111 S.Ct. 2491. 47 . Id. 48 . Id. at 632, 111 S.Ct. 2491. 49 . Id. at 632-33, 111 S.Ct. 2491. 50 . Id. at 633, 111 S.Ct. 2491. 51 . Id. 52 . Id. at 637, 111 S.Ct. 2491. 53 . Id. 637-38, 111 S.Ct. 2491. 54 . Id. at 637, 111 S.Ct. 2491 (citation omitted). 55 . Id. at 639, 111 S.Ct. 2491. 56 . Id. (alteration in original). 57 . Id. at 649, 111 S.Ct. 2491 (Scalia, J., concurring). 58 . Id. at 650, 111 S.Ct. 2491. 59 . Id. 60 . Id. 61 .Id. at 651, 111 S.Ct. 2491. 62 . Id. 63 . Id. 64 . Id. 65 . Paredes I, 574 F.3d 281, 293 (5th Cir.2009). 66 . Id. 67 . Id. 68 . Renico v. Lett, - U.S. -, 130 S.Ct 1855, 1866, 176 L.Ed.2d 678 (2010) (<HOLDING>). 69 . Id. at 1864. Renico also held that the

A: holding that a decision of the court of appeals could not be understood merely to illuminate  the supreme courts decision in arizona v washington 434 us 497 98 sct 824 54 led2d 717 1978 which had considered the breadth of a trial courts discretion in granting a mistrial
B: holding that the supreme courts proper scope of review of a trial courts decision in a trial de novo of an assessment matter is whether the decision of the trial court was clearly erroneous
C: holding that the court need not follow a decision of the district of columbia court of appeals where  it appears that the  court of appeals itself would not follow that decision
D: holding that the ninth circuit erred in granting habeas relief because the state courts decision was not an unreasonable application of strickland v washington 466 us 668 104 sct 2052 80 led2d 674 1984
A.