With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". also Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745, 751, 103 S.Ct. 3308, 77 L.Ed.2d 987 (1983) (“[T]he accused has the ultimate authority to make certain fundamental decisions regarding the case, [including] as to whether ... to testify in his or her own behalf.”). Where a defendant is aware of and understands his right to testify, however, counsel’s alleged failure to call the defendant to the stand does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. See United States v. Castillo, 14 F.3d 802, 804-05 (2d Cir.1994) (concluding that defendant was not denied his right to effective assistance of counsel where defendant had been advised of his right to testify in the first trial, but was dissuaded from testifying by counsel in the second trial); United States v. Eisen, 974 F.2d 246, 265 (2d Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Aguirre, 912 F.2d 555,

A: holding that the decision whether to seek a mistrial is a tactical decision entrusted to defense counsel binding the defendant even when the defendant expressed a contrary wish to his lawyer
B: holding counsels strategic decision not to present a voluntary intoxication defense did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel where counsel determined the murder was not committed while floyd was under the influence of cocaine
C: holding that defense counsels decision not to call defendant to the stand despite defendants repeatedly expressed desire to testify on his own behalf was not ineffective assistance of counsel but was a reasonable tactical decision by counsel not to subject defendant to all of the risk attendant on crossexamination
D: holding that the appropriate vehicle for claims alleging that defense counsel violated a defendants right to testify is a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel
C.