With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Robert Louis Tolbert appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus, arguing that the state trial court violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel when it admitted evidence of a note containing communications he claims were privileged. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we review the district court’s denial of Tolbert’s petition de novo. Clark v. Murphy, 331 F.3d 1062, 1067 (9th Cir.2003). We affirm. To the extent that Tolbert contends that the state court unreasonably concluded that Tolbert waived his state attorney-client privilege, this claim provides no basis for federal habeas relief. Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68, 112 S.Ct. 475, 116 L.Ed.2d 385 (1991) (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, the state court reasonably

A: holding that errors in state law cannot support federal habeas relief
B: holding that gardenvariety errors of state law do not warrant federal habeas relief
C: holding that federal habeas relief is not available to correct errors of state law
D: holding that infirmities in state habeas proceedings do not constitute grounds for federal habeas relief
A.