With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of August 3, 1993 and AffiRM the remainder of the decision. 1 . The district court entered judgment on July 16, 1993, and amended this judgment on August 3, 1993, prior to both this court’s decision in Mojica v. Gannett Co., 7 F.3d 552 (7th Cir.1993) (en banc) (decided on September 27, 1993) and the Supreme Court’s decision in Landgraf v. USI Film Products, - U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 1483, 128 L.Ed.2d 229 (1994) (establishing that the 1991 Act’s jury trial provisions do not apply retroactively). 2 . Indeed, while it may have been the case, it cannot be conclusively determined from the record that the Magistrate Judge notified the parties prior to trial that he intended to convene an advisory jury under Rule 39(c). In this regard, we acknowledge the approach o 29 F.3d 821, 827 (2d Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). Since this issue is not directly before us,

A: holding such agreements to be per se illegal
B: recognizing that such notice is preferable rejecting a per se rule of notice and requiring instead that the complaining party show demonstrable prejudice
C: holding that per se statutory rule is not permissible under fourth amendment
D: recognizing that the applicant received notice from the plea form even though such notice was not required
B.