Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
court’s decision is procedurally sound, then we will consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed, applying an abuse-of-discretion standard.” Id. at 855 (quoting United States v. Braggs, 511 F.3d 808, 812 (8th Cir.2008)). The district court correctly interpreted and applied the sentencing guidelines. The guidelines provide: “Where a statutorily required minimum sentence is greater than the maximum of the applicable guideline range, the statutorily required minimum sentence shall be the guideline sentence.” U.S.S.G. § 5Gl.l(b). The district court thus properly determined the mandatory minimum sentence of 120 months was the guidelines sentence, and thus the appropriate point from which to depart downward. See United States v. Auld, 321 F.3d 861, 867 (9th Cir.2003) ; United States v. Stewart, 306 F.3d 295,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that even if the minimum mandatory exceeds the statutory maximum the court must impose the minimum mandatory
B. holding the mandatory minimum sentence to be constitutionally applicable to respondent
C. holding that a sentence was based on a mandatory statutory minimum sentence even though it was lowered under another statute
D. holding where the statutory minimum sentence exceeds the guidelines sentence a substantialassistance downward departure begins at the mandatory minimum sentence
E. 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
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.