With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Circuit’s support of such a rule. United States v. Perez, 35 F.3d 632, 636 (1994). In the present case, as in Perez, the absence of these factual findings does not justify the lower court’s reversal of the military judge’s ruling. After the judge allowed SGT [E] to be challenged peremptorily without making express factual findings as to the race-neutral explanation, there was no further defense comment, thought, objection, or other expression of dissatisfaction with the prosecutor’s explanation. Additionally, the defense made no request for examination or presentation of evidence. Since defense counsel failed to pursue the matter further during voir dire, a belated post-trial evaluation of the matter makes little sense. See McKeel v. City of Pine Bluff, 73 F.3d 207, 210 (8th Cir.l996)(<HOLDING>). Finally, the ruling of the judge was not

A: holding that the plaintiffs complaint failed to state a claim for purposeful and unlawful discrimination
B: holding that the constitution prohibits a criminal defendant from engaging in purposeful discrimination on the ground of race in the exercise of peremptory challenges
C: holding that 42 usc  1981 requires a showing of purposeful discrimination
D: holding that although opponent of a peremptory challenge is not required to offer proof to establish purposeful discrimination failure to do so may impact on whether the party has carried its burden of persuasion to show purposeful discrimination
D.