With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". evidence of resume fraud to be used as a complete defense to a breach of implied contract claim, we are not suggesting that the employment relationship never existed. Rather, we me preventing an employee from using fraud to take advantage of the Keenan exception to employment at-will by allowing the employer to rescind its agreement to adhere to termination procedures contained in an employment manual. 12 . We limit our holding here to resume fraud and do not address whether sifter-acquired evidence of post-hire misconduct would be similarly analyzed. 13 . Although McKennon arose in the context of post-hire misconduct, its holding applies to cases in which an employee's misconduct consists of resume fraud as well. See Wallace v. Dunn Constr. Co., 62 F.3d 374, 378-79 (11th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>); Wehr v. Ryan’s Family Steak Houses, Inc., 49

A: holding the constitutional rule announced in apprendi does not prohibit a district court from finding by a preponderance of the evidence facts relevant to the application of the guidelines
B: holding that rule announced in mcconnell applies retroactively
C: holding that the rule announced in ring does not apply retroactively to cases already final on direct review
D: holding that the afteracquired evidence rule announced in mckennon applies to cases in which the afteracquired evidence concerns the employees misrepresentations in a job application or resume
D.