With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 133 S.Ct. 2276, 186 L.Ed.2d 438 (2013). See Doc. 3 at 4; Doc. 8 at 5. Section 2255 grants a petitioner one year to file a § 2255 motion from “the date on which the right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if that right has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(3). Descamps issued on June 20, 2013. Petitioner’s § 2255 motion was filed within one year from that date. However, “Descamps does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review...” Abney v. Warden, No. 15-1088, 621 Fed.Appx. 580, 584, 2015 WL 4546193, at *4 (11th Cir. 2015). Thus, Petitioner’s § 2255 motion is untimely filed based on Descamps. See King v. United States, 610 Fed.Appx. 825, 829 (11th Cir.2015) (<HOLDING>). Although not argued by Petitioner, the Court

A: holding that apprendi does not apply retroactively to claims raised in a  2255 motion
B: holding that booker does not apply retroactively to collateral proceedings under  2255
C: holding that batson v kentucky does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review
D: holding descamps does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review and thus the  2255 motion was not timely under  2255f3
D.