With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to suppress. Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267, 93 S.Ct. 1602, 36 L.Ed.2d 235 (1973); United States v. Willis, 992 F.2d 489, 490 (4th Cir.1993). Because Gordon has not met the requirements for Rule 11(a)(2), we find that Gordon is foreclosed from appealing the denial of his motion to suppress. Gordon also waived his right to appeal sentencing issues in the plea agreement. At Gordon’s second guilty plea hearing, to which the plea agreement is applicable, the district court explicitly noted the agreement’s appellate waiver provisions and Gordon reaffirmed his agreement to them. We conclude the waiver is valid and enforceable and that the Sixth Amendment issues raised on appeal fall within the scope of the waiver. See United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 169-73 (4th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). Gordon’s claims regarding the § 1326 offense

A: holding that waiver of right to appeal in plea agreement entered into before united states v booker 543 us 220 125 sct 738 160 led2d 621 2005 was not invalidated by change in law effected by that case and that booker error fell within scope of waiver
B: holding that the changes in sentencing law imposed by united states v booker 543 us 220 125 sct 738 160 led2d 621 2005 did not render waiver of appeal involuntary and unknowing
C: holding that united states v booker 543 us 220 125 sct 738 160 led2d 621 2005 did not alter the standard of review for the interpretation and application of the guidelines
D: holding that  3582c does not apply to a person seeking resentencing under united states v booker 543 us 220 125 sct 738 160 led2d 621 2005
A.