With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". See Tucker v. State, 726 So.2d 768 (Fla.1999); State v. Hargrove, 694 So.2d 729 (Fla.1997); State v. Tripp, 642 So.2d 728 (Fla.1994). Because, the jury verdict did not specifically incorporate a finding of actual possession needed to sustain the imposition of the minimum mandatory, we reverse the three-year minimum mandatory sentence and remand for imposition of a sentence under the criminal punishment code. Reversed and remanded for resentenc-ing. CASANUEVA and SALCINES, JJ., Concur. 1 . An information does not have to refer to section 775.087 for the enhancement to apply, see Bryant v. State, 386 So.2d 237 (Fla.1980), as long as it alleges the use of a firearm, see Staton v. State, 636 So.2d 844 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). See also Matthews v. State, 774 So.2d 1 (Fla. 2d DCA) (en banc) (<HOLDING>), review denied, 779 So.2d 272

A: holding that defendants voice for vagueness argument fails  because there is no indication that the sentence enhancement provision at issue is so vague that it grants undue discretion to law enforcement officials the factors for sentence enhancement under 18 usc  924e1 are quite specific
B: holding that sentence enhancement for crimes committed against law enforcement officers may be applied when information charges qualifying offense information does not need to recite enhancement statute
C: recognizing that enhancement for results obtained may be warranted
D: holding that obstruction of justice enhancement was properly applied where the defendant provided materially false information to a magistrate judge
B.