With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". which should be granted if the appeal presents “no substantial question,” 3d Cir. LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6. After a careful review of the record, we will grant the appellee’s motion and summarily affirm the District Court’s judgment. As the District Court correctly explained, Johnson’s challenge to the validity of his conviction and sentence based on Apprendi and its progeny must be raised in a § 2255 motion, not under § 2241. A § 2255 motion is inadequate and ineffective “only if it can be shown that some limitation of scope or procedure would prevent a Section 2255 proceeding from affording the prisoner a full hearing and adjudication of his claim of wrongful detention.” United States v. Brooks, 230 F.3d 643, 648 (3d Cir.2000); see In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245, 251 (3d Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). Johnson has made no such showing here.

A: holding that petitioner could not challenge his conviction on the grounds that the indictment failed to charge an essential element of the crime through a writ of habeas corpus
B: holding that a prisoner who had no earlier opportunity to challenge his conviction for a crime that an intervening change in substantive law may negate can proceed under  2241
C: holding that that if the success of a  1983 damages claim brought by a prisoner would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence the prisoner may only bring the claim where the conviction or sentence has been invalidated
D: holding the crime of conspiracy is committed or not before the substantive crime begins
B.