With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of showing that no material facts are in dispute and that he or she is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Olsen, v. Layton Hills Mall, 312 F.3d 1304, 1312 (10th Cir.2002). We review the grant of summary judgment based on qualified immunity de novo, “considering all evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Trask v. Franco, 446 F.3d 1036, 1043 (10th Cir.2006). In this case, Ms. Vigil alleged that she was terminated. The district court, however, found that she resigned. The court then relied on this finding throughout its qualified immunity analysis to determine that no constitutional violations had occurred. Yet, our precedent required the court to accept as true her allegation that she was terminated. See Lawrence v. Reed, 406 F.3d 1224, 1230 (10th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). By finding that Ms. Vigil resigned and

A: holding that independent review is not de novo review of the constitutional issue but only a means to determine whether the state court decision is objectively unreasonable internal quotation marks omitted
B: holding that qualified immunity applies if either a the defendants action did not violate clearly established law or b it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to believe that his action did not violate such law internal quotation marks omitted
C: holding that state officials cannot have been expected to predict the future course of constitutional law internal quotation marks omitted
D: holding that qualified immunity analysis begins with the court asking whether the plaintiffs allegations if true establish a constitutional violation internal quotation marks omitted
D.