With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". PER CURIAM. AND NOW, this 28th day of December, 2009, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County is affirmed. See Commonwealth v. Marshall, 596 Pa. 587, 947 A.2d 714 (2008) (<HOLDING>); Commonwealth v. Fahy, 598 Pa. 584, 959 A.2d

A: holding that an increase in the mandatory minimum sentence based on judicial factfinding does not evade the requirements of the fifth and sixth amendments and reaffirming mcmillan v pennsylvania 477 us 79 106 sct 2411 91 led2d 67 1986
B: holding that the district courts observation that a challenge for cause might have been justified as to this juror was more than sufficient under batson which emphasized that the prosecutors explanation need not rise to the level justifying exercise of a challenge for cause quoting batson 476 us at 97 106 sct 1712
C: holding that a postconviction petitioner has 60 days from the date of publication of 1997 philadelphia magazine article to raise claims based thereon under batson v kentucky 476 us 79 106 sct 1712 90 led2d 69 1986
D: holding that batson v kentucky 476 us 79 106 sct 1712 90 led2d 69 1986 does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review
C.