With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Neither is this court free to reopen and replace Congress’s judgment with our own.”), and the factual similarities between Prost and the case here, Mr. Abernathy’s claims appear to be barred, see Stine v. Davis, 442 Fed.Appx. 405, 405-06 (10th Cir.2011) (“A Chambers-type argument that his prior escape convictions did not merit a career offender enhancement was available to Mr. Stine at the time of his initial § 2255 motion. The fact that Chambers itself was not decided until after Mr. Stine filed his initial § 2255 motion makes no difference. Neither does the fact that Mr. Stine may have tried and lost a Chambers-type argument in his first § 2255 motion mean that it was an inadequate and ineffective remedial vehicle for challenging his detention.”); see also Brace, 634 F.3d at 1170 (<HOLDING>). However, Mr. Abernathy presents two arguments

A: holding that the petitioners initial  2255 motion offered him an adequate and effective means for testing his statutory interpretation argument
B: holding statutory interpretation is subject to de novo review
C: holding that an expert is not competent to testify as to statutory interpretation
D: holding that the defendant is precluded from bringing his ncmiosbased statutory interpretation argument under prost
D.