With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to counts three and five on May 26,1998. Prior to sentencing, defendant moved to have the sentence imposed in accord with the September 15, 1992 Guidelines, which defendant claimed were in effect when he committed the offenses on January 15, 1998. The statewide presumptive plea offer for the subject offenses under the September 1992 Guidelines was 364 days in the county jail as a condition of probation. Defendant argued that a sentence imposed in accord with the February 1998 Guidelines would violate the ex post facto provisions of the Federal and State Constitutions because the application of those guidelines made the punishment for the crime more burdensome than the September 1992 Guidelines. See Beazell v. Ohio, 269 U.S. 167, 169-70, 46 S.Ct. 68, 68-69, 70 L.Ed. 216, 217 (1925) (<HOLDING>). The motion was denied and defendant was

A: holding that the supreme courts ex post facto precedents do not clearly establish that amended section 29336 violates the ex post facto clause
B: holding that district court did not violate ex post facto clause in applying remedial holding of booker at sentencing
C: holding that every law that changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime when committed is an ex post facto law within the words and the intent of the prohibition
D: holding that one way in which the ex post facto provision of the constitution can be violated is by applying a law that makes more burdensome the punishment of a crime after its commission
D.