With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Prost is in order. In 1996, Congress significantly altered the habeas landscape by enacting AEDPA, which limited the availability of filing successive § 2255 petitions to instances involving either (1) clear and convincing new evidence that the prisoner was not guilty of the offense, or (2) a new rule of constitutional law that the Supreme Court has made retroactive to cases on collateral review. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h); Prost, 636 F.3d at 583-84. Particularly relevant to Mr. Abernathy’s circumstance is what AEDPA did not provide. It did not provide a remedy for second or successive § 2255 motions based on intervening judicial interpretations of statutes, even though such relief had, in some instances, been available under prior law. See, e.g., Davis, 417 U.S. at 346-47, 94 S.Ct. 2298 (<HOLDING>); United States v. Barnhardt, 93 F.3d 706,

A: holding that post conviction hearing act is not available to juvenile proceeding since the child is not convicted of a crime
B: holding this court may affirm on any grounds supported by the record even if different from the district courts grounds
C: holding that the decision of the appellate court establishes the law of the case and it must be followed by the trial court on remand
D: holding that  2255 is available even on nonconstitutional grounds if a new decision establishes that a prisoner was convicted for an act that the law does not make criminal
D.