With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". understanding of the nature of the hearing and of the evidence that would be presented against him. Hantzis also fails to explain how Booker changed the circumstances such that he would be entitled to a new Faretta colloquy. Hantzis merely asserts that Booker was decided between the time of his motion to represent himself pro se was granted and the date of his sentencing, and assumes that is enough to show changed circumstances. Booker was decided on January 12, 2005. 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738. In Booker, the Supreme Court overruled existing law by holding that the mandatory application of the Sentencing Guidelines was unconstitutional under the Sixth Amendment. 543 U.S. at 244-45, 259-60, 125 S.Ct. 738; see also United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 990 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc) (<HOLDING>). However, this change in the law did not

A: holding that even in the absence of a sixth amendment violation the imposition of a sentence under the former mandatory guidelines regime rather than under the advisory regime outlined in booker is plain error
B: recognizing that under the booker remedial regime  the guidelines are no longer mandatory but are only advisory
C: holding that the cocaine guidelines  are advisory only
D: holding that sentencing under the mandatory guidelines regime creates a presumption of prejudice that the government must rebut with clear and specific evidence that the district court would not have  sentenced the defendant to a lower sentence if it had treated the guidelines as advisory
B.