With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Section 2Fl.l(b)(4)(B) was changed to include a two-point enhancement if the offense involved “a misrepresentation or other fraudulent action during the course of a bankruptcy proceeding.” U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2Fl.l(b)(4)(B) (2000). Thus, the District Court’s application of the 2000 Guidelines Manual resulted in a harsher sentence for Brennan than that called for by earlier versions of the Manual, potentially implicating the ex post facto clause. Nonetheless, when an amendment is a mere clarification, rather than a substantive chang e, application of the November 2000 Sentencing Guidelines would still not violate the ex post facto clause if the fraud continued after the effective date of the amendment. See, e.g., United States v. Moscony, 927 F.2d 742, 754 (3d Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Zimmer, 299 F.3d 710, 718

A: holding that the application of the guidelines in effect at sentencing rather than at the time of defendants conduct does not violate the ex post facto clause even if the current guidelines suggest a harsher sentence because the guidelines are only advisory not binding
B: holding that use of the guidelines in effect at time of sentencing does not violate ex post facto clause after booker
C: holding that application of guidelines did not violate the ex post facto clause because rico offense was a straddle crime that continued before and after the effective date of the guidelines
D: holding that application of an amended version of the guidelines to a conspiracy which continues both before and after the amendment does not violate the ex post facto clause
C.