With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". We review the legal aspects of this decision de novo, and any factual findings for clear error. United States v. Eccleston, 521 F.3d 1249, 1253 (10th Cir.), cert, denied, — U.S.—, 129 S.Ct. 430, 172 L.Ed.2d 311 (2008). DISCUSSION The exhaustion of available administrative remedies is a prerequisite for § 2241 habeas relief, although we recognize that the statute itself does not expressly contain such a requirement. See Williams v. O’Brien, 792 F.2d 986, 987 (10th Cir.1986) (per curiam) (noting that “judicial intervention is usually deferred until administrative remedies have been exhausted”). A narrow exception to the exhaustion requirement applies if a petitioner can demonstrate that exhaustion would be futile. See Fazzini v. Ne. Ohio Corr. Ctr., 473 F.3d 229, 235-36 (6th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>); cf. Fairchild v. Workman, 579 F.3d 1134, 1155

A: recognizing futility exception in context of  2241 petition
B: holding the apprendi rule does not apply retroactively in the context of a  2241 petition
C: recognizing exception
D: recognizing the futility exception to the tribal exhaustion rule
A.