Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Taylor argues that: (1) his conviction was unconstitutional, under the Commerce Clause, because § 922(g)(1) does not regulate an activity with a sufficient nexus to interstate commerce; and (2) he was sentenced in violation of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), because the district court enhanced his sentence based upon facts not charged in the indictment or admitted by him, pursuant to a mandatory sentencing scheme. We review the constitutionality of statutes de novo. United States v. Scott, 263 F.3d 1270, 1271 (11th Cir.2001). Taylor preserved his Booker error by objecting, based on Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), at sentencing. See United States v. Mathenia, 409 F.3d 1289, 1291 (11th Cir.2005) . Accordingly, he is entitled to preserved
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that blakely does not apply to the federal sentencing guidelines
B. holding that appellant properly preserved booker claim by citing blakely in his written objections to the psi and reminding the court at sentencing of his blakely objection
C. holding blakely not retroactive
D. holding neither booker nor blakely can be applied retroactively
E. holding that blakely did not apply to a case that was final but not on direct review when blakely was decided and in which the trial court later allowed a belated appeal
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.