Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
of twenty years. Given the district court’s recognition of Barrientos-Maldonado’s “very serious” criminal history, his sentence of fifty-seven months, which is at the low end of the advisory Sentencing Guidelines, is not unreasonable. Barrientos-Maldonado also challenges his sentence on Sixth Amendment grounds, arguing that any fact beyond the mere fact of conviction that justifies increased punishment under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. This claim is precluded by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 226-27, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), and United States v. Pacheco-Zepeda, 234 F.3d 411, 414 (9th Cir.2000). Contrary to Barrientos-Maldonado’s challenges, Almendarez-Torres remains good law. See Pacheco-Zepeda, 234 F.3d at 414 . Accordingly, we reject BarrientosMaldonado’s
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that almendareztorres remains the law after apprendi
B. holding that almendareztorres is dispositive in rejecting a sixth amendment apprendi challenge to an 8 usc  1326b2 sentence enhancement
C. holding that apprendi carved out an exception for prior convictions that specifically preserved the holding of almendareztorres
D. holding that almendareztorres was not overruled by apprendi
E. holding that almendareztorres remains good law after apprendi
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.