With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". INA, the predicate conviction under § 922(g)(1) is not of an “aggravated felony,” nor even a “felony.” Instead, the predicate conviction under § 922(g)(1) is of any “crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.” Further, such conviction may be in “any court,” and what “constitutes a conviction of such a crime shall be determined in accordance with the law of the jurisdiction in which the proceedings were held.” 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(20). Case law interpreting Lope 798, at *4 (W.D.La. Sept.11, 2007) (“Further, since the resolution of petitioner’s predicament does not turn on an interpretation of the ‘aggravated felony’ provisions of the INA, the holding of Lopez, supra, does not apply.”); Maxwell v. Warden, No. 4:06 CV 2844, 2007 WL 546366, at *3 (ND.Ohio Feb.16, 2007) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, I conclude Lopez does not apply

A: holding the apprendi rule does not apply retroactively in the context of a  2241 petition
B: holding that the attachment statute which did not expressly reach property beyond territorial limits of state would not be construed to apply to property outside state
C: holding lopez did not apply to csa crimes outside of the ina context
D: holding that the fifth amendment did not apply to tribal government
C.