With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 21 (5th Cir.1977) (en banc) (same); Commonwealth v. Markman, 591 Pa. 249, 916 A.2d 586, 606 n. 15 (2007) (observing that an adjudication on any point within the issues presented cannot be considered dictum, nor can an additional reason for a decision brought after the case has been disposed of on one ground); Reynolds-Penland Co. v. Hexter & Lobello, 567 S.W.2d 237, 241 (Tex.Civ.App.1978) (explaining an alternative holding exists where the appellate court rests its decision under the facts presented on two separate but equally valid grounds, whereas obiter dicta exists where the court decides a case on a specific ground and then, assuming facts not before it, makes statements based upon the assumed facts); cf. U.S. ex rel. Bledsoe v. Cmty. Health Sys., 501 F.3d 493, 507 (6th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). Supporting a rationale by including an

A: holding that a letter utilized by the appellant in his argument would not be considered on appeal because it was not properly before the trial court
B: holding that if the trial court would have had no discretion to deny summary judgment on an alternative ground the appellate court can on that alternative ground sustain the order granting summary judgment
C: holding prior conclusion properly considered dicta rather than alternative holding because prior ra tionale could not be considered as alternative holding because it could not support the judgment in the case
D: holding that a deposition that was not presented to the trial court could not be considered on appeal
C.