With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the Ninth Circuit ‘look[ed] through’ the California Supreme Court’s summary , denial of Williams’ petition for review and examined the California Court of Appeal’s opinion, the last reasoned state-court decision-”). Here, the last reasoned decision is that of the superior court, which denied Hinojosa’s ex post facto claim solely on the ground of improper venue. That determination is not a determination “on the merits.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). So, we are not bound by AEDPA. Nonetheless, if a state court dismisses a federal claim on an independent state procedural ground that is firmly established and regularly followed, we normally will not consider the claim. Beard v. Kindler, 558 U.S. 53, 55, 60-61, 130 S.Ct. 612, 175 L.Ed.2d 417 (2009). But the stat 28 Cal.Rptr. 223, 546 P.2d 727 (1976) (<HOLDING>). We will not make the state’s arguments for

A: holding 1 that the district court properly construed one  1983 claim as a habeas petition but improperly summarily dismissed it and 2 that the district court should have construed another  1983 claim as a habeas petition
B: holding that even if venue was improper the case should have been transferred not dismissed
C: holding habeas petition should be transferred not dismissed for improper venue
D: holding that a habeas petition filed more than 30 days after the effective date of the real id act cannot be transferred to the court of appeals as a petition for review for lack of jurisdiction
C.