With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". No. 4:13-CV-1270, 2013 WL 3365139 (N.D.Ohio July 3, 2013) (quoting Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614, 623, 118 S.Ct. 1604, 140 L.Ed.2d 828 (1998)). The Sixth Circuit has never extended to savings clause to a § 2241 petitioner who challenges only the enhancement of his sentence; in fact, the Sixth Circuit has repeatedly held (and in no uncertain terms): “Claims alleging ‘actual innocence’ of a sentencing enhancement cannot be raised under § 2241.” Jones v. Castillo, 489 Fed.Appx. 864, 866 (6th Cir.2012); see also Reminsky v. United States, 523 Fed.Appx. 327, 329 (6th Cir.2013) (“The savings clause under § 2255(e) does not apply to sentencing claims.”); Hayes v. Holland, 473 Fed.Appx. 501, 502 (6th Cir.2012) (same); Contreras v. Holland, 487 Fed.Appx. 287, 288 (6th Cir.2012) (<HOLDING>); Anderson v. Hogsten, 487 Fed.Appx. 283, 284

A: holding challenge to armedcareercriminal enhancement improper under  2241
B: holding that a  2241 petitioners claim was not cognizable under  2241 and therefore the district court lacked jurisdiction
C: holding that prisoners challenge to his sentencing enhancement under  841 and 846 was not cognizable under  2241
D: holding claim is not cognizable
C.