With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". was otherwise denied due process of law in the State court proceeding; (8) or unless that part of the record of the State court proceeding in which the determination of such factual issue was made, pertinent to a determination of the sufficiency of the evidence to support such factual determination, is produced as provided for hereinafter, and the Federal court on a consideration of such part of the record as a whole concludes that such factual determination is not fairly supported by the record: And in an evidentiary hearing in the proceeding in the Federal court, when due proof of such factual determination has been made, unless the existence of one or more of the circumstances r n any event. But cf. Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764, 783, 110 S.Ct. 3092, 111 L.Ed.2d 606 (1990) (<HOLDING>). 7 . Since we determine that Fairman did not

A: holding that sufficiency challenges are cognizable in a federal habeas proceeding
B: holding that an error pertaining to a mixed question of law and fact under state law is not cognizable in a federal habeas proceeding
C: holding the question of necessity is one of mixed law and fact and accordingly one for the fact finder in the ordinary case
D: holding claim that prior conviction was not serious felony under californias sentencing law not cognizable in federal habeas proceeding
B.