Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
of twelve counts of mail fraud and three counts of copyright infringement, and specifically found Susel was in the business of receiving and selling stolen property. Before sentencing, Susel objected to the jury’s finding, which subjected him to an increase in his base offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(4), and asserted he should receive a three-level reduction for only partially completing his offense under U.S.S.G. § 2X1.1(b). The district court applied the § 2B1.1(b)(4) increase, denied the § 2X1.1(b) decrease, and sentenced Susel under the mandatory Sentencing Guidelines to fifty-one months in prison and three years of supervised release. A few days after sentencing, the Supreme Court decided United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 756-57, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005) . The district court held a resentencing
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding a sentence within the advisory guidelines range is presumptively reasonable
B. holding guidelines to be only advisory
C. holding that the pennsylvania sentencing guidelines are purely advisory in nature
D. holding that even though the guidelines are advisory a district court must accurately calculate and consult the defendants guidelines range
E. recognizing only that the guidelines must be advisory not that judges may find no facts
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.