With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". CURIAM: Rigoberto Rodriguez, federal prisoner # 30916-077, appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. He argues that his sentence is invalid in light of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), and United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). Rodriguez’s argument is directed toward a sentencing error; such an argument may not be brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Padilla v. United States, 416 F.3d 424, 425-26 (5th Cir.2005). Rodriguez’s argument that he is entitled to proceed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 based on the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255 because relief under that section is “inadequate or ineffective” is unavailing. See id. at 427 (<HOLDING>). The judgment of the district court is

A: holding petitions under 28 usc  2255 unavailable to advance booker claims in the absence of a supreme court decision rendering booker retroactive
B: holding that a prisoner cannot use the savings clause of 28 usc  2241 to escape the restrictions on successive  2255 motions and the failure to raise an available claim earlier
C: holding that johnson did not support the defendants collateral challenge under 28 usc  2255 to his sentence enhanced under the residual clause of the ussg
D: holding that a claim under booker does not fit within the savings clause of 28 usc  2255
D.