Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
it was received by the government, which filed a response, Rl-330, prior to Garrison’s sentencing and that it was reviewed by the district court because it is referenced in the sentencing transcript, R4-4. Accordingly, we have considered Garrison's sentencing memorandum and the representations therein. We reiterate, however, that it is the responsibility of the parties to see that the appellate record is complete and that documents from which they quote on appeal were docketed in the district court and are part of the record on appeal. 30 . The lack-of-notice cases relied upon by Garrison are inapposite because either the PSR did not indicate the possibility of an upward departure or did not specify the reason for an upward departure. See Burns, 501 U.S. at 131-32, 111 S.Ct. at 2184 ; United States v. Valentine, 21 F.3d 395,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the district court violated fedrcrimp 32 by departing upward in sentence without notice and the psr identified no grounds for departure
B. holding that notice must state the specific grounds for the departure
C. holding that uncharged conduct described in psr and which was discussed by the court at sentencing was sufficient to support an upward departure under  5k221
D. holding harmless any error in departing upward under ussg  4a13 where district court alternatively imposed reasonable sentence as an upward variance
E. holding that the requisite notice must specifically identify the ground on which the district court is contemplating an upward departure
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.