With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 564 F.3d at 342-43. In the sentencing context, Gillikin must demonstrate “that he would have received a lower sentence had the error not occurred.” United States v. Hargrove, 625 F.3d 170, 184-85 (4th Cir.2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). Our review of the record leads us to conclude that, applying a modified categorical approach, see Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575, 602, 110 S.Ct. 2143, 109 L.Ed.2d 607 (1990), Gillikin had three qualifying predicate convictions for violent felonies, as defined by § 924(e)(2)(B). Specifically, Gillikin was convicted in 1993 of burglarizing two different residences several days apart, and these convictions constitute two separate predicate offenses for purposes of § 924(e). See United States v. Thompson, 421 F.3d 278, 285 (4th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). Gillikin also was convicted in 1989 of

A: holding that the term occasion under  924e  necessarily includes burglaries  which were committed on distinct days in separate towns in different homes
B: holding that apprendi did not affect enhanced sentence under  924e
C: holding that use under  924e requires active employment
D: holding that settlement with one defendant could not be setoff from verdict against second defendant where the claims were separate and distinct ie involving different elements of damages
A.