With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". -, 131 S.Ct. 770, 786-87, 178 L.Ed.2d 624 (2011). There is at least “a reasonable argument,” id. at 788, that Lacy’s conviction satisfies the Jackson standard. The Oregon courts reasonably could have determined that there was sufficient evidence that Lacy “use[d] or threatened] the immediate use of physical force” against Killam with the requisite intent. Or.Rev.Stat. § 164.395. Because Lacy’s habeas petition does not raise a colorable federal claim, we need not reach the question of whether Lacy exhausted his state remedies. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2) (“An application for a writ of habeas corpus may be denied on the merits, notwithstanding the failure of the applicant to exhaust the remedies available in the courts of the State.”); Cassett v. Stewart, 406 F.3d 614, 624 (9th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). AFFIRMED. * This disposition is not

A: holding that the federal habeas corpus court could reach the merits of a due process claim even though there was no contemporaneous objection in state court trial where the state habeas corpus court reached the merits rather than rely on the procedural default defense
B: holding that a federal court may deny an unexhausted habeas petition on the merits when it is perfectly clear that the applicant does not raise even a colorable federal claim
C: holding in preaedpa case habeas applicant failed to fairly present federal claim to state court where despite presenting all necessary facts applicant failed to assert specific argument that he later tried to raise in federal court
D: holding a petition unexhausted because the petition provides no citation of any case that might have alerted the court to the alleged federal nature of the claim and the petition does not contain a factual description supporting the claim citations omitted
B.