Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the district court felt that the maximum sentence was the appropriate punishment. Judging from the record, we cannot say the district court abused its discretion by giving the maximum sentence. So long as the district court acts within the guidelines, a harsh sentence, in and of itself, does not constitute error. See United States v. Ponce, 917 F.2d 841, 842 (5th Cir.1990) ("[W]e will uphold the district court’s sentence so long as it results from a correct application of the guidelines to factual findin Cir.1995) (“The 100 to one ratio is extreme, but it is not the province of this Court to second-guess Congress’s chosen penalty. That is a discretionary legislative judgment for Congress and the Sentencing Commission to make.”); United States v. Watson, 953 F.2d 895, 897-98 (5th Cir.) , cert. denied, 504 U.S. 928, 112 S.Ct. 1989,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that no unconstitutional infirmity exists in the sentencing guidelines treatment of crack visavis powder cocaine
B. holding that district court did not err in determining that cocaine base was crack cocaine based on chemical analysis identifying cocaine base together with competent lay testimony bridging the evidentiary gap between cocaine base and crack cocaine and refusing to require showing of smokeability ie water solubility or melting point for purposes of establishing crack cocaine under the guidelines since smokeability distinguishes cocaine base from powder cocaine not from crack
C. holding that a judge may consider the disparity between the guidelines treat ment of crack and powder cocaine offenses in deciding upon a sentence
D. holding that sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine is constitutional
E. holding that the sentencing guidelines disparate treatment of crack cocaine is not racially discriminatory under the fifth amendments equal protection guarantees
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.