With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". convicted of “using” a firearm during a drug crime or violent crime found themselves innocent when the Supreme Court subsequently defined “use” in a restrictive manner in Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137, 116 S.Ct. 501, 133 L.Ed.2d 472 (1995). See 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1). These prisoners, who could not establish their innocence before Bailey, were barred from § 2255 relief after Bailey because successive § 2255 petitions are limited to newly discovered evidence or a new and retroactive rule of constitutional law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255; In re Davenport, 147 F.3d 605 (7th Cir.1998); Triestman v. United States, 124 F.3d 361 (2d Cir.1997); In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245 (3d Cir.1997); see also Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614, 623-24, 118 S.Ct. 1604, 140 L.Ed.2d 828 (1998) (<HOLDING>). Without determining the exact scope of the

A: holding habeas review was available to federal prisoner claiming actual innocence who was barred from bringing a successive  2255 motion because the denial of collateral review would raise sufficiently serious constitutional questions under the eighth amendment and the due process clause
B: holding that a showing of cause and prejudice fails to overcome a defendants initial failure to object
C: holding in a  2255 case that the failure to raise a bailey claim on direct review can be overcome by a showing of actual innocence
D: holding that claims not asserted on direct appeal may not be raised in  2255 motion absent showing of cause for and actual prejudice resulting from failure to raise them
C.