With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". we consider the reasons offered by the prosecutor to explain each strike. See Miller-El, 545 U.S. at 241,125 S.Ct. at 2325. 1. Veniremembers Wiggins and Fon-tenot Wiggins (veniremember 7) and Fontenot (veniremember 31) were both black women employed by the USPS. At the Batson hearing, the prosecutor testified that he struck Wiggins and Fontenot because of their employment with the USPS. The prosecutor also stated that veniremember 31 originally indicated that she would not consider assessing a life sentence. “[W]hen the State indicates that it challenged a prospective juror based on that person’s type of employment and that the State has had poor success with that type of worker, the reason is a race-neutral explanation for exercising the peremptory challenge.” Moore, 265 S.W.3d at 84 (<HOLDING>); see Tompkins v. State, 774 S.W.2d 195, 205

A: holding of obviousness affirmed on the basis of the teachings of the prior art references in combination not on the basis of the contemporaneous invention
B: holding that striking postal worker on basis of occupation was raceneutral
C: holding that allegations of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation necessarily state a claim of discrimination on the basis of sex
D: holding that a credible basis was established based on the shareholders claims
B.