With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 153 L.Ed.2d 524 (2002). In Harris, the Court reaffirmed McMillan and upheld a court’s ability to increase a defendant’s minimum sentence by finding that the defendant brandished a firearm in the course of drug trafficking without proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Harris, 536 U.S. at 559-60, 122 S.Ct. 2406. As a result, Defendant’s challenge to the vitality of Smith and Elliott is unavailing. {5} Nor are we persuaded by Defendant’s challenge of Almendarez-Torres, either because of Justice Thomas’s concurring opinion in Apprendi, or the level of the contest raised concerning the existence of prior convictions. As the State points out, the federal circuit courts have consistently rejected these contentions. See, e.g., United States v. Arellano-Rivera, 244 F.3d 1119, 1127 (9th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Gomez-Estrada, 273 F.3d 400,

A: holding that apprendi carved out an exception for prior convictions that specifically preserved the holding of almendareztorres
B: holding both that almendareztorres was not overruled by apprendi and was not limited to facts in which the defendant does not contest prior convictions
C: holding that almendareztorres remains good law after apprendi
D: holding that almendareztorres was not overruled by apprendi
B.