Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
argues that the district court already had adjusted his punishment by sentencing him under U.S.S.G. § 2A2.1 (first degree murder) instead of U.S.S.G. § 2A2.2 (aggravated assault). The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 provides that a district court may depart from the sentencing range set by the Sentencing Guidelines only when it finds that “there exists an aggravating or mitigating circumstance of a kind, or to a degree, not adequately taken into consideration by the Sentencing Commission in formulating the guidelines.” 18 U.S.C. § 3558(b). Here, the district court departed upward because criminal history category VI, which requires only 13 criminal history points, did not adequately reflect Defendant’s 25 criminal history points. United States v. Osborne, 948 F.2d 210, 212 (6th Cir.1991) . Review of a sentence that departs from the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that when a defendant qualifies as a career felon it is not necessary to ascertain the defendants criminal history category because the sentencing guidelines mandate a criminal history category of vi
B. holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing an upward variance after finding that the defendants criminal history category of i understated the seriousness of his criminal history
C. holding that 24 criminal history points was so high that even placement in category vi did not adequately reflect the seriousness of the defendants criminal past
D. holding a court may consider a defendants criminal history even if that history is included in the defendants criminal history category
E. holding that request for departure in sentencing based on a criminal history category that overstated defendants record violated plea agreement that prohibited departure requests but did not stipulate to a specific criminal history category
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.