With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". facts in the present case were insufficient to establish that Sabia had “flaunted” the requirements of the Act. The Secretary asserts, however, that Bethlehem has been superseded, in light of the 1990 amendment to 29 U.S.C. § 666(a). Sabia, on the other hand, argues that Bethlehem continues to be “good law” and will continue to be binding precedent until overruled by this court en banc. We agree with the Secretary that Bethlehem does not control the disposition of this case. Although a panel of this court is bound by, and lacks authority to overrule, a published decision of a prior panel, see supra note 2, a panel may reevaluate a precedent in light of intervening authority and amendments to statutes or regulations. See United States v. Joshua, 976 F.2d 844, 853 (3d Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Bass, 54 F.3d 125,131 (3d

A: holding that one panel of this court is bound by the precedent of an earlier panel absent en banc reconsideration or a superseding contrary decision of the supreme court
B: holding that decision by panel of this court is established precedent under rules of stare decisis
C: holding that a panel is free to consider the sentencing commissions newly adopted interpretive commentary and based thereon reach a decision contrary to the holdings of prior precedent
D: holding that a three judge panel is free to reexamine the holding of a prior panel when the supreme court has undercut the theory or reasoning underlying the prior circuit precedent in such a way that the cases are clearly irreconcilable
C.