With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Mr. Henry was a death row inmate who filed a request for stay of execution just four days before his scheduled execution, along with an emergency application for leave to file a second or successive federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). Henry, 757 F.3d at 1152-53. Mr. Henry expressly requested “expedited consideration of’ his application to file a second or successive motion based on the then-recent decision in Hall v. Florida, — U.S. —, 134 S.Ct. 1986, 188 L.Ed.2d 1007 (2014). He emphasized that his application would be “moot if not ruled on” before his scheduled execution. Notably, Mr. Henry’s application did not ask for full briefing or oral argument. Rather, he requested a prompt ruling and an “order authorizing the United States Distric t. 1604, 140 L.Ed.2d 828 (1998) (<HOLDING>); O’Dell v. Netherland, 521 U.S. 151, 117 S.Ct.

A: holding that the supreme courts decision in bailey v united states 516 us 137 116 sct 501 133 led2d 472 1995 effected a material change in the law because the circuit previously held that accessability of a firearm was enough to support an inference that a firearm was used in a drug crime whereas bailey required active employment of the firearm
B: holding that the supreme courts decision in bailey v united states 516 us 137 116 sct 501 133 led2d 472 1995 effected a material change in the law because the circuit previously held that accessibility of a firearm was enough to support an inference that a firearm was used in a drug crime whereas bailey required active employment of the firearm
C: holding that the rule announced in bailey v united states 516 us 137 116 sct 501 133 led2d 472 1995 applies retroactively on collateral review
D: holding that the rule announced in simmons v south carolina 512 us 154 114 sct 2187 129 led2d 133 1994 doesnt apply retroactively on collateral review
C.