With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". ¶1 In light of this Court’s decision in State v. Guillaume, 1999 MT 29, 293 Mont. 224, 975 P.2d 312, Cory Rosales moved the First Judicial District Court, Lewis and Clark County, to amend his sentence for the conviction of felony assault and the use of a weapon pursuant to § 46-18-221, MCA. The District Court dismissed his motion due to the running of the five-year statute of limitations for postconviction relief. Rosales appeals. We affirm the District Court. ¶2 On appeal, Rosales asks us to reconsider two procedural bars effective in a case similar to his, State v. Nichols, 1999 MT 212, 295 Mont. 489, 986 P.2d 1093. Specifically, he asks us to reverse our decision on the application of the statute of limitations and the bar against retroactive application of the law. Cf. Nichols (<HOLDING>). Rosales asserts that it would be inequitable

A: holding that both procedural bars precluded the defendant from moving the court to amend his sentence on the basis of guillaume
B: holding that an express waiver of the right to appeal the sentence was invalid because the trial court had failed properly to advise the defendant and that the defendant therefore did not waive his right to appeal the legality of his sentence
C: holding bars failure to present evidence on an issue to which the parties had stipulated precluded the attorney from challenging the accuracy of the finding
D: holding that the plaintiff was precluded from raising the issue for the first time on appeal
A.