With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". see also United States v. Segler, 37 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir.1994) (“A district court’s technical application of the Guidelines does not give rise to a constitütional issue cognizable under § 2255.”). Here, Mr. Buggs argues that a subsequent amendment to the guidelines after his direct appeal makes the inclusion of the negotiated amount of heroin improper. This argument raises no constitutional issue; the issuance of a certificate of appealability was therefore inappropriate. €. Conviction Under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) Lastly, Mr. Buggs asserts that the district court erred in not vacating his conviction for using or carrying a firearm. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). He relies upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137, 116 S.Ct. 501, 133 L.Ed.2d 472 (1995) (<HOLDING>). Mr. Buggs correctly notes that the jury

A: holding that elements of statute which became  924e need not be reflected in indictment for crime charged
B: holding that the fact of prior convictions under  924e need not be charged in an indictment and proven to a jury and also that the government need not charge in an indictment and prove to a jury that a defendants prior conviction constitutes a violent felony under  924e
C: holding that apprendi does not affect enhanced sentence under  924e and citing cases
D: holding that use under  924e requires active employment
D.