With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Judge. Clarence Jones appeals r section 939.185, Florida Statutes (2004); however, we find no error in the imposition of that cost. See Griffin v. State, 980 So.2d 1035 (Fla.2008) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we affirm Jones’s convictions

A: holding that the ex post facto clause  has no application to deportation
B: holding that the retroactive application of a statute authorizing the assessment of a cost to a defendant who committed the felony pri or to the statutes enactment did not violate ex post facto laws
C: holding that retroactive application of mvra does not violate the ex post facto clause because restitution is not a criminal punishment
D: holding retroactive application of idra would violate the ex post facto clause
B.