With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Branti, 445 U.S. at 518-20, 100 S.Ct. 1287. 6 . Id. at 519-20, 100 S.Ct. 1287. 7 . Id. at 518, 100 S.Ct. 1287. 8 . Id. 9 . Id. 10 . See, e.g., Savage v. Gorski, 850 F.2d 64 (2d Cir.1988); Faughender v. City of North Olmsted, 927 F.2d 909 (6th Cir.1991); Soderbeck v. Burnett Cty., 752 F.2d 285 (7th Cir.1985); DiRuzza v. County of Tehama, 206 F.3d 1304, 1310 (9th Cir.2000); Fazio v. City and County of San Francisco, 125 F.3d 1328 (9th Cir.1997). 11 . 125 F.3d 1328 (9th Cir.1997). 12 . Id. at 1332 (alteration in original) (quoting Branti, 445 U.S. at 518, 100 S.Ct. 1287). 13 . Id. at 1333 (alteration in original) (citing Wilbur v. Mahan, 3 F.3d 214, 217 (7th Cir.1993)). 14 . Id. at 1334. 15 . 189 F.3d 989 (9th Cir.1999). 16 . Id. at 994-95. 17 . Id. at 995 (quoting Fazio, 125 F.3d at 1331 (<HOLDING>)). But see Barker v. City of Del City, 215 F.3d

A: holding that it is axiomatic that this court can affirm a circuit court if the right result is reached even if for a different reason
B: holding that pickering balancing is not reached if the branti exception applies
C: recognizing the rule and the exception but holding facts did not support claim to exception
D: holding that the language if the merits were reached the result would be the same is a contrarytofact holding not an alternative holding emphasis in original
B.