With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". testimony concerned events relating to charged conduct in the indictment and was not admitted under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), the district court did no s convicted of the following counts: (1) conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute cocaine base more than 50 grams of cocaine base with Jonathan Cellen Bolware, Floyd Kimball, and "other persons,” between April 17, 2006, and June 3, 2008, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), and (b)(l)(A)(iii) ("Count 1”); (2) distribution of more than 50 grams of cocaine base on July 20, 2006, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(l)(A)(iii) ("Count 2"); (3) 2 counts of distribution of more than 5 grams of cocaine base on April 10, 2008, and April 11, 2008, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) Cir. 2008)

A: holding that almendareztorres v united states 523 us 224 118 sct 1219 140 led2d 350 1998 in which supreme court held it unnecessary to prove prior convictions beyond a reasonable doubt is narrow exception to apprendi
B: holding that almendareztorres v united states 523 us 224 118 s ct 1219 140 l ed 2d 350 1998 expressly held that a prior conviction need not be proved to a jury and the united states supreme court has not held otherwise since
C: holding that the supreme courts holding in almendareztorres v united states 523 us 224 118 sct 1219 140 led2d 350 1998 that the government need not allege in its indictment and need not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant had prior convictions for a district court to use those convictions for purposes of enhancing a sentence remains binding precedent
D: holding that we are bound to follow almendareztorres v united states 523 us 224 118 sct 1219 140 led2d 350 1998 even though it has been called into question unless it is explicitly overruled by the supreme court
C.