With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". v. Newsome, 322 F.3d 328, 333 (4th Cir.2003) (quoting United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 862 (4th Cir.1996)). We find that there was substantial evidence to support the verdict that Smith possessed the firearms. Employees of Cumberland Pawn Shop identified Smith as the person to whom they sold the firearms, and the employees testified that they gave him the firearms at the time of sale. The driver’s licenses used in connection with the sales were found at Smit ny factual findings regarding the prior convictions, and he does not dispute the factual basis for the district court’s conclusions that he was an armed career criminal. Accordingly, Smith’s assertion that his sentence violated the Sixth Amendment is without merit. See United States v. Collins, 412 F.3d 515, 523 (4th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). To the extent that Smith contests his

A: holding that the career offender guideline could not directly apply when there was an unsentenced conviction but allowing the district court on remand to consider departing from the guidelines in order to sentence a defendant whose conduct delayed his convictions as if the career offender provision applied
B: holding that application of career offender enhancement falls within exception for prior convictions where facts are undisputed making it unnecessary for district court to engage in further fact finding about prior convictions
C: holding that where defendant did not dispute any of the facts supporting the career offender status in district court there is no constitutional violation in relying on defendants prior convictions
D: holding that defendants sixth amendment right to trial by a jury was not violated by district courts reliance on his prior convictions for purposes of sentencing as career offender
C.