With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". it appears at least four judges in the Second District would agree with the First, Fourth, and Fifth Districts if not for Second District precedent. 5 . Although not relevant to the precedential value of our decision in Mann, we note that the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals later vacated Mann's sentence on other grounds. See Mann v. Dugger, 844 F.2d 1446, 1458-59 (11th Cir.1988) (en banc) (finding the jurors were misinformed as to the importance of their recommendation, contrary to Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320, 105 S.Ct. 2633, 86 L.Ed.2d 231 (1985)). The resentencing resulted in another death sentence, which we affirmed. See Mann v. State, 603 So.2d 1141, 1144 (Fla.1992). Mann v. Dugger was subsequently overruled. See Davis v. Singletary, 119 F.3d 1471, 1482 (11th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). PARIENTE, J., concurring. While I have

A: holding that although contempt and sanctions are not identical the principles the supreme court articulated for cases of contempt in international union united mine workers of america v bagwell 512 us 821 114 sct 2552 129 led2d 642 1994 guide our determination of what procedural protections are necessary in imposing sanctions under a courts inherent powers
B: holding that the rule announced in simmons v south carolina 512 us 154 114 sct 2187 129 led2d 133 1994 doesnt apply retroactively on collateral review
C: holding as meritless a claim that the standard jury instructions which refer to the jury as advisory and refer to jurys verdict as a recommendation violate caldwell
D: recognizing that references to and descriptions of the jurys verdict as advisory as a recommendation and of the judge as the final sentencing authority are permissible under romano v oklahoma 512 us 1 114 sct 2004 129 led2d 1 1994
D.