With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". final under the AEDPA. We vacate the district court’s order because we find that the district court did not have jurisdiction to rule on Green’s motion for an extension of time absent the filing of a substantive section 2255 motion. In view of the facts of this case, however, the government has offered to waive its statute of limitations defense to permit Green to file a section 2255 motion. BACKGROUND A. Green’s Trial and Appeal On March 30, 1994, a jury returned guilty verdicts against Green for, inter alia, racketeering conspiracy, narcotics conspiracy, engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise and obstruction of justice, all arising out of Green’s role as the leader of the “L.A. Boys” gang in Buffalo, New York. See United States v. Workman, 80 F.3d 688, 691-92 (2d Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). The district court sentenced Green to four

A: holding that defendant who was associated with the enterprise and engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity when he repeatedly violated the antifraud provisions of the securities laws was not liable under  1962c because he had no part in directing the enterprises affairs
B: holding green vicariously liable even though green did not actively participate in the sale of the records and that it had no knowledge of the unauthorized manufacture of the records
C: holding on direct appeal that the evidence showed that green was the leader of the la boys and that he had orchestrated the enterprises activities
D: holding that the government had not produced evidence that the defendant intended to influence an official proceeding because the evidence showed only that he intended to influence the state civil proceedings that he had brought against his insurance agency
C.