With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". § 104(3), now embodied in Section 2254(d). As just reconfirmed in Abrams v. Barnett, 100 F.3d 485, 489 (7th Cir.1996), that means Jones is disentitled to any habeas relief here unless the state court adjudications either: (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding. In determining whether the Appellate Court of Illinois’ decision was contrary to federal law, this court must rely on the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of the United States, See Lindh v. Murphy, 96 F.3d 856, 869 (7th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). Those tests alone could well doom some or all

A: recognizing that the supreme court has indicated that affirmative misconduct is a prerequisite to a finding of estoppel against the united states
B: recognizing that the majoritys holding represented a sharp and radical departure  a 180 turn  from our courts and the united states supreme courts jurisprudence as to the burden of persuasion on the third prong of the plain error test
C: holding district court erred in relying on authority other than that of the supreme court of the united states in its analysis under  2254d
D: recognizing that the new  2254d is a retrenchment from former practice which allowed the united states courts of appeals to rely on their own jurisprudence in addition to that of the supreme court
D.