With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Mr. Baptiste attempted to impeach Detective Sanchez's explanation by asking whether he had selected ten kilograms in order to increase his sentence. The District Court barred the line of questioning, ruling that sentencing was not an issue for the jury to consider. Mr. Baptiste correctly argues that even if the sentence that he was facing was not generally admissible as evidence at trial, the line of questioning could have impeached Sanchez’s proffered reason for selecting ten kilograms of cocaine. See Ellis v. Capps, 500 F.2d 225, 227 (5th Cir.1974) (“Facts wholly immaterial, or prejudicial to one of the parties on the main issue, may be material as affecting the credibility of a witness.”); see also Bonner v. City of Prichard, Ala., 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir.1981) (<HOLDING>). Nonetheless, even if this ruling rose to the

A: holding that all decisions of the old fifth circuit handed down prior to the close of business on september 30 1981 are binding precedent in the eleventh circuit
B: holding that all fifth circuit cases decided before the close of business on september 30 1981 are binding on the eleventh circuit
C: holding as binding decisions rendered by the former fifth circuit prior to the close of business on september 30 1981
D: holding that the expanded definition of aggravated felony applies retroactively in actions taken on or after september 30 1996
C.