Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
overcompensates the defendant, at the expense of the deterrence force of the criminal law. Another consequence is that there will be fewer motions of any kind. If filing a motion under § 5K1.1 permits the judge to cut the sentence by three-quarters (as happened here), the prosecutor will insist on a great deal of assistance. Many defendants are unlucky enough to have little of value to offer.... They are now condemned to serve the full authorized sentence, even though a prosecutor possessed of power to differentiate might reward slight aid with a slight reduction. ' We hold that a motion under USSG § 5K1.1 unaccompanied by a motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) does not authorize a sentencing court to impose a se d.2d 169 (1993); United States v. Valente, 961 F.2d 133, 135 (9th Cir.1992) . V. Finally, Melendez argues that the district
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a sentence below a statutory minimum based on the filing of a substantial assistance motion did not eliminate the otherwise applicable mandatory minimum for purposes of sentence modification under  3582c2
B. holding that a motion under  5k11 permitted a downward departure from the guideline range but that the departure could not extend below the statutory minimum sentence absent an additional motion by the government under  3553e
C. holding that a defendants substance abuse or addiction does not justify a downward departure
D. holding that defendants diminished capacity while grounds for departure from the guidelines sentencing range is not grounds for departure below the minimum sentence set by congress
E. holding that defendants aberrant behavior will not justify a departure below a statutory minimum
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.