Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): So.2d 719, 721 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). Direct review proceedings include seeking discretionary review in the Florida Supreme Court. Cardali, 794 So.2d at 721. The Florida Supreme Court does not, however, have subject matter jurisdiction over a district court opinion that fails to expressly address a question of law, such as opinions issued without opinion or citation. Beaty v. State, 701 So.2d 856 (Fla.1997) (finding that, where a defendant’s plenary appeal had been per curiam affirmed without written opinion or citation, the two-year period for purposes of filing a motion for postconviction relief began to run from the issuance of the district court’s mandate, rather than from the Supreme Court’s denial of discretionary review); Florida Star v. B.J.F., 530 So.2d 286, 288 n. 3 (Fla.1988) (<HOLDING>). In the case before us, this Court’s per 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that federal courts must accept the decision of the states highest court even if it is an erroneous one (B) holding that a district court decision rendered without opinion or citation constitutes a decision from the highest state court empowered to hear the cause (C) holding that when there is no ruling by the states highest court it is the duty of the federal court to determine as best it can what the highest court of the state would decide (D) holding that when applying state law this court follows the decision of the highest state court or in the absence of such a decision and any indication that the highest court would rule differently the decisions of the states intermediate courts (E) holding that when applying state law a federal court is bound to follow the highest court in the state
Output (English): holding that when applying state law a federal court is bound to follow the highest court in the state