With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". The Supreme Court recently held in Beckles v. United States, — U.S. —, 137 S.Ct. 886, 197 L.Ed.2d 145 (2017), that the Guidelines are not subject to a vagueness challenge under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Id. at 892, 895, 897. The Court explained that, unlike the Armed Career Criminal Act’s residual clause, which was invalidated in Johnson v. United States, — U.S. —, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015), “§ 4B1.2(a)’s residual clause is not void for vagueness.” Id. at 895, 897. Hamilton’s Virginia conviction for unlawful wounding remains a crime of violence under the residual clause post-Rec/cfes, notwithstanding that the Government conceded in the district court that the residual clause was void for vagueness. See United States v. Lee, 855 F.3d 244, 247 (4th Cir. 2017) (<HOLDING>). We therefore affirm the district court’s

A: holding that the state felony offense of taking indecent liberties with a child categorically constituted a crime of violence for purposes of the career offender sentencing guidelines
B: holding that reduced career offender status was nonetheless based the career offender guidelines
C: holding that north carolina crime of larceny from the person was a crime of violence under the residual clause of the career offender guideline
D: holding that virginia conviction for unlawful wounding qualified as a crime of violence under the career offender guidelines residual clause
D.