With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition requesting relief from removal. We have jurisdiction over a final judgment denying a habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we reverse. Preliminarily, we reject the government’s contention that the issue of whether Alvarado is an aggravated felon is barred by res judicata. On direct review, we determined Alvarado’s conviction for transportation of a controlled substance was an aggravated felony, as required by United States v. Lomas, 30 F.3d 1191 (9th Cir.1994). An en bane panel of this court reversed the Lomas decision in United States v. Rivera-Sanchez, 247 F.3d 905 (9th Cir.2001), and thus the issue may be relitigated. See Clifton v. Attorney Gen. of Cal., 997 F.2d 660, 663 (9th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). Alvarado’s state conviction for

A: recognizing exception to application of res judicata and collateral estoppel principles to decisions of administrative proceedings where there has been manifest error in the record
B: recognizing the express reservation of the plaintiffs right to maintain a second action as an exception to the doctrine of res judicata
C: recognizing the traditional exception to res judicata where between the time of the first judgment and the second there has been an intervening decision or a change in the law creating an altered situation  quoting state farm v duel 324 us 154 162 65 sct 573 89 led 812 1945
D: holding that a  2255 hearing is permitted on an issue previously addressed on direct appeal when there has been an intervening change in the law
C.