Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
of 210 months’ imprisonment. Under the post -Booker advisory guideline regime, the district court must still consider the applicable guideline range of 188— 235 months, but it may vary from the range if it concludes reasonably that factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) warrant a different sentence. Even under the mandatory guidelines, however, the district court was able to consider the § 3553(a) factors in determining where within the mandatory range Brooks should be sentenced. That the court elected a sentence of 210 months from within the range of 188 to 235 months gives us confidence that the added flexibility of the post-Booker regime would not have led the district court to impose a more favorable sentence. See United States v. Perez-Ramirez, 415 F.3d 876, 878 (8th Cir.2005) . Brooks has not raised any argument, after
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that even without booker constitutional error in the district courts application of the guidelines there could be nonconstitutional error where the court applied the guidelines in a mandatory fashion
B. holding that because the district court did not fully use its discretion to depart from the guidelines when determining the proper range or in imposing the term of sentence sentence was 2 months above sentencingrange minimum any booker error was harmless
C. holding that where district court left unused some of its discretion to impose a more favorable sentence nonconstitutional booker error was harmless
D. holding that where a district court clearly indicates that an alternative sentence would be identical to the sentence imposed under the guidelines any error that may attach to a defendants sentence under booker is harmless
E. holding that booker constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because on remand the district court would have given defendant the same sentence
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.