With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". be filed” after concluding that the case presented a sufficiency issue, and in Delk v. Atkinson, 665 F.2d 90, 94 (6th Cir.1981), we explained that “[t]he evidence has been summarized and discussed in three opinions. Nevertheless, we are required to make an independent determination of its sufficiency under the Jackson v. Virginia standard and have read the transcript of the trial for this purpose.” Other circuits have also concluded that a review of the state-court trial transcript is necessary for sufficiency-of-the-evidence review. See, e.g., Magouirk v. Phillips, 144 F.3d 348, 363 (5th Cir.1998) (“We are at a loss to understand how a federal habeas court can conduct a meaningful sufficiency review without a transcript of trial.”); Jones v. Wood, 114 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). We note that Loveday v. Davis, 697 F.2d 135

A: holding that the lack of evidence that the magistrate judge examined the trial transcript in its sufficiencyoftheevidence analysis left the court no alternative but to reverse the denial of habeas relief and remand for review of the transcript
B: recognizing that the appellate court may reverse an error of law on the face of the judgment when the record contains no transcript of the final hearing
C: holding that failure to review the evidence presented to the magistrate and failure even to have a transcript filed with the district court  was reversible error
D: holding that the trial court failed to exercise its discretion by stating that it did not have the ability to present the transcript to the jury
A.