With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". WL 5895199, at *7 (S.D.W.Va. Oct. 8, 2015) (“This Court holds that enhancing a convicted individual’s sentence under the residual clause of the career offender enhancement, § 4B1.2(a)(2), denies due process of law because the residual clause is unconstitutionally vague.”); and Petrillo v. United States, 147 F.Supp.3d 9, 21, No. 3:08-CV-1204 (JBA), 2015 WL 7574744, at *7 (D.Conn. Nov. 25, 2015) (“Because the Government acknowledges that the Guidelines may be unconstitutionally vague and because the Supreme Court recently held that language identical to § 4B1.2 is unconstitutionally vague, by the Government’s own admission, if [the defendant] were sentenced today, he would not be sentenced as a career offender.”); but see United States v. Matchett, 802 F.3d 1185, 1195 (11th Cir.2015) (<HOLDING>). Mr. Lucas has served in excess of 111 months

A: holding that the vagueness doctrine does not apply to advisory sentencing guidelines notwithstanding the governments position that the residual clause of  4b12a was unconstitutionally vague following johnson
B: holding residual clause of acca void for vagueness
C: holding a defendant could not receive an enhanced sentenced under the residual clause of  4b12a2 following johnson
D: holding guidelines to be only advisory
A.