With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Antonio Naranjo-Mendoza appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to attempted entry after deportation and misuse of entry documents in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 and 18 U.S.C. § 1546. Naranjo-Mendoza contends that Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), is no longer good law and that the district court violated his constitutional rights in enhancing his sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) based on a non-jury fact finding regarding his prior commission of an aggravated felony. This contention is foreclosed by United States v. Weiland, 420 F.3d 1062, 1079 n. 16 (9th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). Similarly, there is no merit to

A: holding that we are bound to follow almendareztorres even though it has been called into question unless it is explicitly overruled by the supreme court
B: holding that almendareztorres remains good law unless and until the supreme court chooses to overturn it
C: holding that almendareztorres was not overruled by apprendi
D: holding that we are bound to follow almendareztorres v united states 523 us 224 118 sct 1219 140 led2d 350 1998 even though it has been called into question unless it is explicitly overruled by the supreme court
A.