With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". because it did not change the law but rather interpreted the terms of the INA and CSA to explain what the law has always meant. See Rivers v. Roadway Express, Inc., 511 U.S. 298, 312-13, 114 S.Ct. 1510, 128 L.Ed.2d 274 (1994) (“A judicial construction of a statute is an authoritative statement of what the statute meant before as well as after the decision of the ease giving rise to that construction.”); United States v. Riverar-Nevarez, 418 F.3d 1104, 1107 (10th Cir.2005). Lopez was decided on December 5, 2006. Thus—if I accept Defendant’s argument— this motion was filed within the limitations period. The Tenth Circuit applies Lopez retroactively to cases that were open on direct review when Lopez was decided. See Gonzalez-Gonzalez v. Weber, 472 F.3d 1198, 1201-02 (10th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). Defendant’s case, however, clearly had become

A: holding that when the supreme court applies a rule of federal law to the parties before it that rule is the controlling interpretation of federal law and must be given full retroactive effect in all cases still open on direct review and as to all events regardless of whether such events predate or postdate our announcement of the rule
B: holding that when the supreme court applies a rule of federal law to the parties before it that rule is the controlling interpretation of federal law and must be given full retroactive effect in all civil cases still open on direct review and as to all events regardless of whether such events predate or postdate the supreme courts announcement of the rule
C: holding that new rules of law apply to pending civil cases on direct appeal regardless of whether events predate announcement of rule
D: holding lopez must be given full retroactive effect in all cases still open on direct review and as to all events regardless of whether such events predate or postdate the announcement of the rule citing harper v va dept of taxation 509 us 86 97 113 sct 2510 125 led2d 74 1993
D.