With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” (emphasis added)); Brace, 634 F.3d at 1169-70 (affirming the district court’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction of a petitioner’s § 2241 petition, where the petitioner could not meet § 2255(e)’s savings clause); see also Rice v. Rivera, 617 F.3d 802, 807 (4th Cir.2010) (concluding that the district court lacked jurisdiction over the petitioner’s § 2241 petition because he failed to meet the Fourth Circuit’s savings clause test); Harrison v. Ollison, 519 F.3d 952, 961-62 (9th Cir.2008) (affirming the district court’s dismissal of a § 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction because the petitioner failed to meet the Ninth Circuit’s savings clause test); cf. Palma-Sala-zar v. Davis, 677 F.3d 1031, 1038 (10th Cir.2012) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, we construe the district court’s

A: holding that apprendi does not retroactively apply to  2241 petitions
B: holding claim is not cognizable
C: holding that prisoners challenge to his sentencing enhancement under  841 and 846 was not cognizable under  2241
D: holding that a  2241 petitioners claim was not cognizable under  2241 and therefore the district court lacked jurisdiction
D.