Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
on defendant’s long arrest record plus adjudicated criminal history without following § 4A1.3 in its “holistic evaluation” of § 3553(a) factors and affirming above-guidelines sentence); United States v. Perez-Molina, 627 F.3d 1049, 1049-51 (7th Cir.2010) (concluding that district court did not err in disregarding § 4A1.3 because it also relied on other § 3553(a) factors in imposing sentence that doubled high end of guidelines range). Nor was there any error in the court’s consideration of the pending Wisconsin charges during the § 3553(a) analysis because a sentencing court may further consider facts already taken into account during the guidelines calculations. See United States v. Aljabari, 626 F.3d 940, 951(7th Cir.2010); United States v. Tockes, 530 F.3d 628, 633 (7th Cir.2008) . We are even less persuaded by Adams’s
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing district courts discretion to consider pending state charge in determining sentence
B. recognizing discretion of district court in determining a fee award
C. recognizing appellate courts discretion to consider issues raised in the district court but not resolved there
D. holding that a trial courts consideration of a new pending charge at a sentencing hearing for the purpose of determining a pattern of conduct and defendants character was not improper absent a showing that the trial judge used the pending charge in determining defendants sentence
E. holding appellate courts must consider the trial courts jury charge as a whole
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.