With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 2680, 2742 (2005); Pub.L. No. 109-163, § 1405(e)(1), 119 Stat. 3136, 3477 (2006); Pub.L. No. 109-366, § 7(a), 120 Stat. 2600, 2635 (2006); Pub.L. No. 110-181, § 1063(f), 122 Stat. 3, 323 (2008). That statutory jurisdictional bar erected by Congress in those amendments, currently found in 18 U.S.C. § 2241(e), is different from the judge-made jurisdictional bar against unexhausted § 2241 petitions set forth in Gonzalez. The latter bar, which has no statutory home, is the only one at issue in the present case. 4 . That Thaler dealt with a different section of the habeas corpus statute and Reed Elsevier dealt with a different statute altogether does not undermine our conclusion that those two decisions abrogated Gonzalez. See United States v. Sneed, 600 F.3d 1326, 1332 (11th Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Lopez, 562 F.3d 1309, 1312

A: holding that one of our prior panel precedents involving the armed career criminal act was undermined to the point of abrogation by shepard v united states 544 us 13 125 sct 1254 161 led2d 205 2005 even though shepard dealt with a different provision of that act
B: holding that the changes in sentencing law imposed by united states v booker  us  125 sct 738 160 led2d 621 2005 did not render waiver of appeal involuntary and unknowing
C: holding that united states v booker 543 us 220 125 sct 738 160 led2d 621 2005 did not alter the standard of review for the interpretation and application of the guidelines
D: holding that one of our prior panel precedents about when criminal filing deadlines are jurisdictional was abrogated by bowles v russell 551 us 205 127 sct 2360 168 led2d 96 2007 even though bowles dealt with civil filing deadlines
A.