With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Thus, before the district court has jurisdiction to review a § 2241 petition, the petitioner must show that § 2255 is “inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” See id. A hopeful § 2241 petitioner may not argue the merits of his claim until he has “open[ed] the portal” to a § 2241 proceeding by demonstrating that the savings clause in § 2255(e) applies to his claim. Wofford v. Scott, 177 F.3d 1236, 1244 n. 3 (11th Cir.1999); see also Williams, 713 F.3d at 1339-40. We have not fully defined the scope of the § 2255(e) savings clause in all contexts; however, we have consistently stated that — to access § 2241 through the savings clause portal in § 2255(e) — a petitioner’s claim must, among other things, be based on a retroactively applicabl 1258 (11th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 310-11, 109

A: holding that because apprendi does not apply retroactively neither does blakely
B: holding that apprendi does not apply retroactively
C: holding that blakely does not apply retroactively to  2255 motions
D: holding that apprendi does not apply retroactively to claims raised in a  2255 motion
D.