Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
plain at the time of appellate review. See Pirani, 406 F.3d at 550. To satisfy the third Olano factor, Paz must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that there exists “a reasonable probability that he would have received a more favorable sentence with the Booker error eliminated by making the Guidelines advisory.” Id. at 551. Paz cannot demonstrate that there exists. a reasonable probability that the district court would have imposed a more favorable sentence under an advisory guidelines system. First, the district court, in its discretion, chose to depart upward because Paz’s criminal history category substantially under-represented the seriousness of his criminal history and the likelihood he would commit other crimes. See United States v. Sayre, 400 F.3d 599, 601 (8th Cir.2005) . Second, not only did the district court
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding guidelines to be only advisory
B. holding that the cocaine guidelines  are advisory only
C. holding that the district court which had considered the guidelines but found an upward variant sentence necessary given the defendants previous violations did not abuse its discretion when it imposed a 24month sentence instead of a guidelines range sentence of 3 to 9 months incarceration
D. holding that the district court did not violate the defendants right to due process when it departed upward to life imprisonment pursuant to  5k221 because his sentence was within the maximum set forth in the united states code for the offense of conviction
E. recognizing the futility of remanding a sentence for the application of advisory guidelines where the district court had previously departed upward
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.