With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". loss during the time of Arnold’s involvement in the conspiracy. Arnold, 125 FedAppx. 269. Arnold then filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted that petition, vacating our opinion and remanding the case for further consideration in light of Booker. Arnold,-U.S.-, 125 S.Ct. 2527, 161 L.Ed.2d 1107. STANDARD OF REVIEW While Arnold asserts that he raised the Booker issue both at trial and on direct appeal, the record does not support this assertion. Arnold’s sentencing “affidavit” did not object to the district court’s estimation of the tax loss under the preponderance standard, raise his jury trial rights under the Sixth Amendment, nor cite to any case in the Apprendi line. See United States v. Dowling, 403 F.3d 1242, 1246 (11th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). However, when reviewed under the liberal

A: holding that appellants nonconstitutional sentencing objection failed to preserve booker error where the objection made no reference to the sixth amendment the role of judge as factfinder the right to jury determination of disputed facts or the apprendi line of cases
B: holding that general objection did not preserve error on appeal
C: holding that there is no sixth amendment right to jury sentencing
D: holding that to preserve an alleged error in the admission of evidence a timely objection must be made to the introduction of the evidence specific grounds for the objection should be stated and a ruling on the objection must be made by the trial court
A.