With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Lamar failed to seek post-conviction review of his claims in state court pursuant to Colo. R.Crim. P. 35. The district court agreed and dismissed Lamar’s § 2254 petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust his state court remedies. The court rejected Lamar’s ar er 8, 2010, Lamar notified the court that he has appealed the sentence imposed on May 5, 2010, after the matter was remanded by the CCA for resentencing. The state court docket indicates Lamar’s opening brief was filed on June 17, 2011, and the answer brief is not due until November 29, 2011. Accordingly, because Lamar’s direct appeal from his conviction and sentence is still pending before the Colorado courts, he has not exhausted all available state remedies. See Daegele v. Crouse, 429 F.2d 503, 504-05 (10th Cir.1970) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, our review of the record

A: holding that errors in state law cannot support federal habeas relief
B: holding that infirmities in state habeas proceedings do not constitute grounds for federal habeas relief
C: holding that an alien must exhaust administrative remedies before seeking habeas relief from detention
D: holding federal habeas proceeding was properly dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies when petitioners direct appeal from resentencing was still pending in state court at the time he sought habeas relief
D.