With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 443 F.3d 1362, 1367 (11th Cir. 2006); Lave v. Dretke, 444 F.3d 333, 336 (5th Cir. 2006), petition for cert. filed, No. 05-11552 (U.S. June 13, 2006); Dorchy v. Jones, 398 F.3d 783, 788 (6th Cir. 2005); Murillo v. Frank, 402 F.3d 786, 791 (7th Cir. 2005); Mungo v. Duncan, 393 F.3d 327, 336 (2d Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 544 U.S. 1002 (2005); Evans v. Luebbers, 371 F.3d 438, 444 (8th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1067 (2005); Edwards v. People, 129 P.3d 977, 988 (Colo. 2006); Chandler v. Crosby, 916 So. 2d 728, 730-31 (Fla. 2005); Danforth v. State, 700 N.W.2d 530, 532 (Minn. Ct. App. 2005); People v. Soto, 795 N.Y.S.2d 429, 433 (Sup. Ct. 2005); In re Markel, 111 P.3d 249, 254 (Wash. 2005). 30 Brown, 381 F.3d at 1226-27; see also U.S. v. Mora, 293 F.3d 1213, 1219 (10th Cir. 2002) (<HOLDING>). 31 Brown, 381 F.3d at 1227. 32 118 Nev. 807,

A: holding that almendareztorres remains binding despite apprendi v new jersey 530 us 466 120 sct 2348 147 led2d 435 2000
B: holding that apprendi v new jersey 530 us 466 120 sct 2348 147 led2d 435 2000 does not apply to a judges exercise of discretion within a statutory range so long as a defendants sentence is not set beyond the maximum term specified in the substantive statute
C: holding that  851 factfinding falls within the prior conviction exception set out in apprendi v new jersey 530 us 466 490 120 sct 2348 147 led2d 435 2000
D: holding that apprendi v new jersey 530 us 466 2000 did not alter fundamental due process rights in part because apprendi errors could be excused given overwhelming evidence
D.