With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". procedures and served on the alien in question, in order for a subsequent § 1326 conviction to be lawful. In the present case, Mendez-Casillas contends that a valid warrant was never issued by the INS, nor was one ever served on him prior to his forced departure from the country in 1994. Mendez-Casillas’s argument thus boils down to the claim that because the warrant of deportation was unsigned, the INS violated its own regulations, thereby rendering his arrest a nullity. The government, on the other hand, argues (as the district court found at trial) that a § 1326 violation constitutes a continuing offense, such that an alien who illegally reenters the U.S. is deemed to be in continual violatio 9th Cir.2000) (same); United States v. Ramirez-Valencia, 202 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>); cf. United States v. Hernandez, 189 F.3d 785,

A: holding that failure to appear for sentencing is a continuing offense because a convicted criminal has a continuing obligation to face sentencing and presents an ongoing threat to the integrity and authority of the court so long as he has not appeared
B: holding that the mere mandatory application of the guidelines  the district courts belief that it was required to impose a guidelines sentence  constitutes error
C: holding that because a  1326 violation constitutes a continuing offense venue may lie in any district in which the continuing conduct occurred
D: holding that because a  1326 violation constitutes a continuing offense the iiriraamended sentencing guidelines applied to the case
D.