With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". a technical oversight in the indictment. 8 .This Court is aware of a recent Fourth Circuit case allowing defendants whose sentences were ■vacated after a successful § 2255 challenge based upon Bailey to be resentenced. United States v. Hillary, 106 F.3d 1170 (4th Cir.1997). That appeal was limited only to the issue of whether a defendant could be resentenced after a conviction had been vacated. Retroactivity was not analyzed, possibly because the case was considered on expedited review. 9 . The Fourth Circuit did consider such claims before Teague but after Davis. See United States v. Bonnette, 781 F.2d 357 (4th Cir.1986) (concluding that a reinterpretation in a mail fraud statute should be applied retroactively); see also United States v. Mandel, 862 F.2d 1067, 1074-75 (4th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). Bonnette certainly does not resoundingly

A: holding same for writ of error coram nobis
B: holding that rule 4as time limits govern an appeal from a district court order granting or denying a petition for a writ of error coram nobis
C: holding that federal court may not issue writ of coram nobis for state prisoner
D: recognizing that under the common law applications for writs of error coram nobis were civil in character
A.