What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the bases on which the Supreme Court rested its decision with regard to the legal provision that the Court considered in the case. Consider "judicial review (national level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of the federal government, including an interstate compact. Consider "judicial review (state level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of a state or local government. Consider "statutory construction" for cases where the majority interpret a federal statute, treaty, or court rule; if the Court interprets a federal statute governing the powers or jurisdiction of a federal court; if the Court construes a state law as incompatible with a federal law; or if an administrative official interprets a federal statute. Do not consider "statutory construction" where an administrative agency or official acts "pursuant to" a statute, unless the Court interprets the statute to determine if administrative action is proper. Consider "interpretation of administrative regulation or rule, or executive order" if the majority treats federal administrative action in arriving at its decision.Consider "diversity jurisdiction" if the majority said in approximately so many words that under its diversity jurisdiction it is interpreting state law. Consider "federal common law" if the majority indicate that it used a judge-made "doctrine" or "rule; if the Court without more merely specifies the disposition the Court has made of the case and cites one or more of its own previously decided cases unless the citation is qualified by the word "see."; if the case concerns admiralty or maritime law, or some other aspect of the law of nations other than a treaty; if the case concerns the retroactive application of a constitutional provision or a previous decision of the Court; if the case concerns an exclusionary rule, the harmless error rule (though not the statute), the abstention doctrine, comity, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or if the case concerns a "rule" or "doctrine" that is not specified as related to or connected with a constitutional or statutory provision. Consider "Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction" otherwise (i.e., the residual code); for issues pertaining to non-statutorily based Judicial Power topics; for cases arising under the Court's original jurisdiction; in cases in which the Court denied or dismissed the petition for review or where the decision of a lower court is affirmed by a tie vote; or in workers' compensation litigation involving statutory interpretation and, in addition, a discussion of jury determination and/or the sufficiency of the evidence.

Opinion:
ARAVE, WARDEN v. HOFFMAN
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-110.
Decided January 7, 2008
Per Curiam.
Respondent Maxwell Hoffman was convicted óf first-degree murder and sentenced to death. See State v. Hoffman, 123 Idaho 638, 851 P. 2d 934 (1993). Hoffman sought federal habeas relief on the grounds that, inter alia, his counsel had been ineffective during both pretrial plea bargaining and the sentencing phase of his trial. The District Court, finding that Hoffman had received ineffective assistance of counsel during sentencing but not during plea bargaining, granted Hoffman’s federal habeas petition in part and ordered the State of Idaho to resentence him. Civ. Action No. 94-0200-S-BLW (Mar. 30, 2002), App. to Pet. for Cert. 38, 65. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s decision regarding ineffective assistance of counsel during sentencing, but reversed with respect to the ineffective-assistance claim during plea negotiations. 455 F. 3d 926, 942 (2006). The Ninth Circuit thus granted the writ, ordering the District Court to direct the State either to release Hoffman or to “offe[r] [him] a plea agreement with the ‘same material terms’ offered in the original plea agreement.” Id., at 943. The State sought, and we granted, certiorari. Post, p. 1008.
Hoffman now abandons his claim that counsel was ineffective during plea bargaining. See Respondent’s Motion to Vacate Decision Below and Dismiss the Cause as Moot. He “no longer seeks or desires the relief ordered by the Court of Appeals with respect to the plea offer.” Id., at 3. Rather, Hoffman now “wishes to withdraw his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in connection with plea bargaining” and asks this Court to dismiss his appeal with prejudice on that issue so that he may proceed with the resentencing ordered by the District Court. Ibid.
The State, in its response, notes that Hoffman’s requested relief is “virtually identical to the request made by the state in its Petition for Certiorari.” Response to Respondent’s Motion to Vacate Decision Below and Dismiss the Cause as Moot, p. 3. The State therefore agrees that the instant motion to vacate and dismiss with prejudice moots Hoffman’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel during plea negotiations and asks that the motion be granted.
We grant respondent’s motion. Because his claim for ineffective assistance of counsel during pretrial plea bargaining is moot, we vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals to the extent that it addressed that claim. The case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit with directions that it instruct the United States District Court for the District of Idaho to dismiss the relevant claim with prejudice. Deakins v. Monaghan, 484 U. S. 193, 200-201 (1988); United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U. S. 36, 39-40 (1950).
It is so ordered.
The State initially cross-appealed the District Court’s grant of Hoffman’s habeas petition for ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing. The State, however, subsequently withdrew that cross-appeal, leaving in place the District Court’s order granting habeas relief as to Hoffman’s death sentence. 455 F. 3d 926, 931 (CA9 2006).

Question: What is the basis of the Supreme Court's decision?

Choices:
judicial review (national level)
judicial review (state level)
Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction
statutory construction
interpretation of administrative regulation or rule, or executive order
diversity jurisdiction
federal common law

Answer: 2