With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". there is an adjudication of guilt. United States v. Washington, 480 F.3d 309, 318 (5th Cir.2007) (citing United States v. Joshua, 305 F.3d 352 (5th Cir.2002) (per curiam))(noting that “a deferred adjudication is a conviction for purposes of [U.S.S.G. § ] 4B1.1”); but see United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 368 n.9 (5th Cir.2009)(noting, in a case interpreting 8 U.S.C. § 1101, that “[ujnder Texas law, a deferred adjudication is neither a conviction nor a sentence.”). In United States v. Daniels, this court affirmed the district court’s conclusion that a Texas deferred adjudication sentence may be applied as a prior conviction under state and federal law during subsequent sentencing proceedings, regardless of dismissal of the state indictment. 588 F.3d 835 (5th Cir.2009)(<HOLDING>). Therefore, we cannot find that the district

A: holding mailing a threatening letter was a crime of violence for the purposes of ussg  4b11
B: holding a guilty plea pursuant to a deferred judgment is a conviction for purposes of the feloninpossessionofafirearm statute iowa code section 72426
C: holding that a guilty plea for which the defendant received a deferred adjudication counted as a conviction under federal law for purposes of ussg  4b11
D: holding that petitioners prior guilty plea and deferred adjudication for forgery did not amount to a conviction within the meaning of the immigration reform and control act 8 usc  1255a
C.