With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". decision); id. at 451-52 (rejecting the argument that removal violated the Equal Protection Clause because of a difference in the timing and location of proceedings); id. at 452 (finding an argument based on international law waived). Rather, he contends that “summary decision on this case would result in overlooking legal arguments” that were not presented in Salazar-Regino. The relief Petitioner seeks would require us to act contrary to prior precedent. However, one panel of this court cannot overrule a prior panel decision. See id. at 448 (court obliged to follow the panel decision in Hernandez-Avalos); Dahl v. Akin, 630 F.2d 277, 282 n. 4 (5th Cir.1980) (“[I]n this Circuit, one panel cannot overrule another”); Williams v. Blazer Fin. Servs., Inc., 598 F.2d 1371, 1374 (5th Cir.1979) (<HOLDING>). Because we are obliged to follow

A: holding that one panel of this court is bound by the precedent of an earlier panel absent en banc reconsideration or a superseding contrary decision of the supreme court
B: recognizing that a later en banc court may overrule an earlier en banc opinion
C: holding that we are bound by prior panel opinions until they are overruled or abrogated by the supreme court or this court sitting en banc
D: holding ajbsent en banc reconsideration we are bound by prior decisions of this circuit
D.