Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
that the district court erred in enhancing their sentence based upon a conviction subsequent to another conviction found in the same proceedings. The Smith court rejected the defendants’ argument that Apprendi required that the jury make specific findings as to whether the multiple counts qualified as subsequent offenses under § 924(c)(1)(C). Id. The Smith court averred that “[bjecause Ap-prendi does not apply to increases of the mandatory minimum, Harris, Deal, and McMillan preclude the Appellants’ argument.” Id. at 349; McMillan v. Pennsylvania, 477 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 2411, 91 L.Ed.2d 67 (1986) (upholding a statute that permitted a sentencing court to find facts that raised the mandatory minimum sentence); Harris v. United States, 536 U.S. 545,122 S.Ct. 2406, 153 L.Ed.2d 524 (2002) . We cannot hold that Deal has been overruled
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that apprendi does not apply retroactively in florida in postconviction proceedings to cases that were final on direct review at the time of the apprendi decision
B. holding that decision in penn survives lehmann
C. holding that where a conviction survives an apprendi challenge under plain error review a sentence appropriate for that conviction also survives
D. holding that the decision in mcmillan survives apprendi
E. holding that the apprendi decision is not applicable on collateral review
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.