With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm. Reinke contends that a supplemental jury instruction given by the trial court impermissibly lowered the state’s burden of proof. The government contends that this court should not reach the merits of Reinke’s claim because it was procedurally defaulted. Although the district court addressed the merits of Reinke’s claim, we can affirm on any ground supported by the record. See White v. Klitzkie, 281 F.3d 920, 922 (9th Cir.2002). We agree with the government and do not reach the merits of Reinke’s claim because the state court applied an independent and adequate state procedural ground in ruling that the claim was procedurally defaulted. See Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 750, 111 S.Ct. 2546, 115 L.Ed.2d 640 (1991) (<HOLDING>); accord Bennett v. Mueller, 322 F.3d 573, 580

A: holding that in the case of state procedural default a federal habeas review of the claims is barred unless the prisoner can demonstrate among other things that failure to consider the claims will result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice
B: holding that a prisoners failure to pursue an appeal in state court is a procedural bar to federal habeas relief unless the petitioner shows both cause for failing to bring the state claim  and actual prejudice from the failure to consider his federal claims
C: holding that federal court cannot review claim procedurally defaulted in state court absent showing of either cause and prejudice or a fundamental miscarriage of justice
D: holding that federal review of claims is barred where those claims have been defaulted in state court pursuant to an independent and adequate state procedural rule unless the petitioner can demonstrate cause and prejudice
D.