With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". F.Supp. at 838. Both Yerger and Felker construed statutes that narrowed the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction in habeas eases. The statute at issue in Yerger prohibited direct appeals to the Supreme Court of habe-as decisions by lower courts. See 75 U.S. (8 Wall.) at 105. In Felker the statute at issue prohibited appeals and petitions for certiorari from decisions by the circuit courts to grant or deny motions for leave to make a successive habeas application. See 116 S.Ct. at 2337-39. In both cases the Supreme Court concluded that Congress had not repealed its jurisdiction to hear original habeas petitions under § 2241. In contrast to the narrow jurisdictional proscriptions at issue in Yerger and Felker, however, AEDPA section 440(a) contains a categorical prohibition on judicial review “b (<HOLDING>). The precise scope of review need not be

A: holding that nonconstitutional claims that could have been raised on direct appeal may not be asserted in a collateral proceeding
B: holding that appellate courts may review trial courts legal conclusions to determine their correctness
C: holding that  1983 claims may be joined with an administrative review
D: holding that courts may review nonconstitutional claims
D.