With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". this case, evidence that the court ruled inadmissible as to Carpenter. In addition, the record includes all of the pleadings, only a small fraction of which relate to Cárpenter or the Houston Storage transaction. 11 . See also Terrell v. DeConna, 877 F.2d 1267, 1270 (5th Cir.1989) (‘‘[W]hen a federal court renders a decision in a diversity case, the decision’s preclusive effect is measured by federal principles of preclusion.”); Avondale Shipyards, Inc. v. Insured Lloyd’s, 786 F.2d 1265, 1269 n. 4 (5th Cir.1986) ("We apply federal law to the question of the res judicata or collateral estoppel effect of prior federal court proceedings, regardless of the basis of federal jurisdiction in either the prior or the present action.”); Johnson v. United States, 576 F.2d 606, 612 (5th Cir.1978) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 1018, 101 S.Ct. 3007,

A: holding that res judicata and collateral estoppel apply to arbitration award
B: holding that federal rules of res judicata and collateral estoppel determine preclusive effect of prior federal ftca judgments even though liability is based on state law
C: holding in a res judicata case that fjederal law determines the preclusive effect of a prior federal judgment
D: holding that to determine collateral estoppel effect of a federal civil rights action fjederal law governs the preclusive effect of a claim arising under federal law
B.