With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". ” Id. at 1316 n. 3. Most recently, we reiterated in United States v. Cantellano, 430 F.3d 1142 (11th Cir.2005), that the holding in AlmendarezTorres remains undisturbed. Id., at 1147. Accordingly, insofar as the district court’s enhancement of Davila-Rodriguez’s sentence as a career offender under § 4B1.1 involved determinations that he had prior convictions, these determinations did not implicate the Apprendi/Blakely/Booker line of cases. Moreover, to the extent that Davila-Rodriguez’s argument can be construed as asserting that Almendarez-Torres is not applicable because the government had to show that his prior convictions, in addition to existing, were “crimes of violence,” we also have rejected this argument. See United States v. Glover, 431 F.3d 744, 749 (11th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Gallegos-Aguero,

A: holding that the constitutional level of punitive damages is not a finding of fact that must be determined by the jury it may be determined de novo by the court
B: holding that under illinois law interpreting the meaning of a contract is a question of law determined by the court
C: holding that whether a previous conviction is a crime of violence is a question of law not of fact as it must be determined by interpreting  4b12
D: holding it is a question of fact
C.