With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 92 F.3d at 6. Even if such an accounting somehow fell short under Miller — and we do not hold that it did — such a procedural shortfall did not violate the bar on mandatory life sentences for juveniles, the only holding of Miller that the government has conceded qualifies for habeas relief on a second or successive petition, and the only holding on which the petitioners have made a prima facie showing of retroactivity. Cf Tyler v. Cain, 533 U.S. 656, 668, 121 S.Ct. 2478, 150 L.Ed.2d 632 (2001) (O’Connor, J., concurring) (noting that a rule has been made retroactive by the Supreme Court if the Court expressly declares it retroactive or issues multiple holdings that “logically dictate ... retroac-tivity”); Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 310, 109 S.Ct. 1060, 103 L.Ed.2d 334 (1989) (<HOLDING>). IY. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, we

A: holding that new rules of criminal procedural are generally not retroactive
B: holding that the act is retroactive
C: holding generally that new rules of law should not be applied retroactively in habeas corpus cases
D: holding retroactive application
A.