With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". and in line with Blakely, the Supreme Court in Booker extended the holding in Apprendi with the following modification: “Any fact (other than a prior conviction) which is necessary to support a sentence exceeding the maximum authorized by the facts established by a plea of guilty or a jury verdict must be admitted by the defendant or proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id., 125 S.Ct. at 756. Petitioner Casas is not entitled to relief under Apprendi, Blakely, and Booker for more than one reason. His reliance on these holdings is misplaced as none of them applies retroactively on collateral review. Like Blakely, Booker is not retroactive. See McReynolds v. United States, 397 F.3d 479, 480 (7th Cir.2005), cert. denied, 545 U.S. 1110, 125 S.Ct. 2559, 162 L.Ed.2d 285 (2005) (<HOLDING>); see also Guzman v. United States, 404 F.3d

A: holding that blakely does not apply retroactively to  2255 motions
B: holding that booker does not apply retroactively to collateral proceedings under  2255
C: holding that apprendi does not apply retroactively to claims raised in a  2255 motion
D: holding that apprendi does not retroactively apply to  2255 motions
B.