With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Tobacco Co., 84 F.3d 734, 744 (5th Cir.1996)). Appellants contend the district court’s Rule 23 analysis inappropriately assessed likelihood of success on the merits. We find, however, that the district court’s merits inquiries were appropriate for Rule 23 analysis. “[C]lass determination generally involves considerations that are enmeshed in the factual and legal issues comprising the plaintiffs cause of action.” General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 160, 102 S.Ct. 2364, 72 L.Ed.2d 740 (1982) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); Oscar Private Equity Invs. v. Allegiance Telecom, Inc., 487 F.3d 261, 268 (5th Cir.2007), abrogated on other grounds by Erica P. John Fund, Inc. v. Halliburton Co. (Halliburton), — U.S. —, 131 S.Ct. 2179, 180 L.Ed.2d 24 (2011) (<HOLDING>). Ultimately, the court must consider “how a

A: holding that a district court must give full and independent weight to each rule 23 requirement regardless of whether that requirement overlaps with the merits
B: holding requirement nonjurisdictional and remanding for a possible eeoc waiver of that requirement
C: holding that a district court is entitled to give more weight to the seriousness of the offense than to other factors
D: holding that this court does not decide whether a petitioner must demonstrate that a trial court would have accepted the plea offer to prove prejudice because assuming such a requirement exists petitioner met the requirement
A.