With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". CURIAM Based on Oregon v. Ice, 555 US_, 129 S Ct 711, 172 L Ed 2d 517 (2009), the state petitions for reconsideration of our decision in this case. State v. Nguyen, 221 Or App 440, 190 P3d 462 (2008). For the reasons that follow, we allow reconsideration, modify our prior opinion and adhere to it as modified, withdraw our prior disposition, and affirm. In our prior opinion in this case, we affirmed defendant’s convictions for robbery, kidnapping, and burglary, but, based on State v. Ice, 343 Or 248, 170 P3d 1049 (2007), we reversed the consecutive sentence that the trial court had imposed and remanded for resentencing. Since then, the United States Supreme Court has reversed the Oregon Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Ice. See Oregon v. Ice, 555 US at_, 172 L Ed 2d at 525 (<HOLDING>). In light of Oregon v. Ice, we conclude that

A: holding apprendi does not apply to consecutive sentencing
B: holding that constitutional right of privacy does not apply to medical records
C: holding that the federal constitutional right to a jury trial does not apply to decisions to impose consecutive sentences
D: holding right to testify was federal constitutional right
C.