With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". held in Mingo v. Sugar Cane Growers Co-op. of Florida, findings satisfying both prongs of our standard are essential before dismissal with prejudice is appropriate. 864 F.2d 101, 102-03 (11th Cir.1989). And, although “we occasionally have found implicit in an order the [findings necessary to support dismissal], we have never suggested that the district court need not make that finding.” World Thrust Films, Inc., 41 F.3d at 1456 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We rigidly require the district courts to make these findings precisely “[b]ecause the sanction of dismissal with prejudice is so unsparing,” Mingo, 864 F.2d at 103, and we strive to afford a litigant his or her day in court, if possible. Flaksa v. Little River Marine Constr. Co., 389 F.2d 885, 888 (5th Cir.1968) (<HOLDING>). Thus, in Mingo, where the district court

A: holding that it is error to conduct most of the jury selection process in the absence of the defendant
B: holding that a litigant has standing to challenge the constitutionality of a statute if the law is unconstitutional as applied to that particular litigant
C: recognizing the importance except in the most flagrant circumstances of resorting to sanctions that do not deprive a litigant of his day in court
D: recognizing that it is not enough merely to mention a possible argument in the most skeletal way leaving the court to do counsels work
C.