With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". person may act for more than one reason.” Id. at 26. In this case, while race was “a factor,” the prosecutor exercised his peremptory challenges for more than one reason. In denying the motion for a mistrial, the trial judge implicitly found that the prosecutor had advanced race-neutral reasons for his peremptory strikes. The state appellate court explicitly found that the prosecutor’s proffered reasons were race-neutral. And, on this § 2254 petition, the district court reached the same conclusion after carefully examining the transcript of each of the prosecutor’s explanations. We accord deference to this factual determination of the state courts and the district court. See Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 362-66, 111 S.Ct. 1859, 1868-69, 114 L.Ed.2d 395 (1991) (plurality opinion) (<HOLDING>); Spaziano v. Singletary, 36 F.3d 1028, 1032

A: holding that the clearly erroneous standard of review applies unless judgment is entered on the basis of documentary evidence alone
B: holding that clearly erroneous standard of review governs review of trial judges findings on batson claims because they turn largely on credibility
C: holding that the clearly erroneous standard of review applies to  3bllc determinations
D: holding that the lower court is the factfinding body and that its findings of fact will not be set aside on appellate review unless they are clearly erroneous
B.