With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Howard E. Leasure appeals from the district court’s denial of his request for sentence modification. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Leasure contends that he is entitled to re-sentencing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582. This contention is foreclosed by Carrington v. United States, 470 F.3d 920, 923 (9th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). Leasure also contends that he is entitled to

A: holding that waiver of right to appeal sentence in plea agreement accepted before decision in united states v booker 543 us 220 125 sct 738 160 led2d 621 2005 was not invalidated by change in law
B: holding that waiver of right to appeal in plea agreement entered into before united states v booker 543 us 220 125 sct 738 160 led2d 621 2005 was not invalidated by change in law effected by that case and that booker error fell within scope of waiver
C: holding that the changes in sentencing law imposed by united states v booker 543 us 220 125 sct 738 160 led2d 621 2005 did not render waiver of appeal involuntary and unknowing
D: holding that  3582c does not apply to a person seeking resentencing under united states v booker 543 us 220 125 sct 738 160 led2d 621 2005
D.