With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the application of Blakely in Foster [therefore] di appellate counsel performed deficiently by failing to raise a Blakely claim, he could not prevail without also showing that counsel’s deficient performance prejudiced him. In this context, a showing of prejudice would require demonstrating “a reasonable probability that inclusion of the [Blakely ] issue would have changed the result of the appeal.” Benning, 345 Fed.Appx. at 158 (quoting Wilson v. Parker, 515 F.3d 682, 707 (6th Cir.2008)) (alteration in original). This requires only “a reasonable probability that the appeal would have resulted in a remand,” and does not necessarily require that “the remand would have resulted in a shorter sentence.” Ibid.; see also Carter v. Timmerman-Cooper, 380 Fed.Appx. 470, 473 (6th Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>). Under this standard, it is clear that Baker

A: holding that the district judge who remanded a properly removed case where there was diversity jurisdiction exceeded statutory authority when he remanded that case based on efficiency
B: holding failure to assert blakely claim in analogous context did not result in prejudice because under ohio law at the time it is unlikely the fifth district would have remanded petitioners case
C: holding that the state court could not procedurally bar a claim through retroactive application of a rule that did not exist at the time the rule would have applied to the petitioners case
D: holding that blakely did not apply to a case that was final but not on direct review when blakely was decided and in which the trial court later allowed a belated appeal
B.