With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". first argues that the district court exceeded its constitutional authority under the Sixth Amendment when it imposed “an enhancement based on facts not admitted by him and not found by a jury.” He acknowledges, however, that the line of cases beginning with Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), permits factfinding by the court regarding the nature of a prior conviction. But he wishes to preserve the issue in the event that the Supreme Court reconsiders Almendarez-Torres. By Ossa-Gallegos’s own admission, the district court’s classification of his prior sexual-assault conviction as violent does not violate his Sixth-Amendment rights under the current state of the law. See United States v. Richardson, 437 F.3d 550, 555 (6th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). The 16-level enhancement under the

A: holding that a sentencing court may determine the nature of a prior conviction without violating the sixth amendment
B: holding that controlling law both before and after booker counsels that a judge can make factual findings about a defendants prior convictions without implicating the sixth amendment
C: holding that the armed career criminal designation based on prior convictions does not violate the sixth amendment under booker
D: holding that defendants sixth amendment right to trial by a jury was not violated by district courts reliance on his prior convictions for purposes of sentencing under the acca even though convictions were neither charged in indictment nor admitted
B.