Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
So the statute and all the Guideline references, including the Policy Statement of the Sentencing Commission, are consistent with our construction of the statute, which is that the authority of a district court to depart from the Guidelines following a motion by the government under § 3553(e), acknowledging substantial assistance, is not limited so that a finite sentence must be imposed, rather probation is authorized. Id. at 859-60. Thus, under Wilson, there was no limit on how low the district court in this case could have departed under § 3553(e) as long as the extent of the departure was reasonable under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(e). This reading of Wilson is con sistent with decisional law from one of our sister circuits. Cf. United States v. Auld, 321 F.3d 861, 867 (9th Cir.2002) . It has been suggested, and interpreted by
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that where a defendants guideline range is 121 to 151 months and his statutory minimum sentence is 240 months and the government moves for a downward departure pursuant to both  3553e and  5k11 the starting point for the departure is 240 months and the court is not limited to the low end of the guideline range in determining the extent of the departure
B. holding that after granting the governments motion for downward departure pursuant to both  3553e and  5k11 the district court did not err when it determined that the starting point for departing downward was the higher statutorily required minimum sentence and not the lower otherwise applicable guideline range
C. holding that the district courts use of an incorrect method for calculating the amount of drugs at issue was harmless because the end result under either method would have resulted in the court departfingj downward from the guidelines range and rendering a sentence within the statutory maximum of 240 months imprisonment and njothing in the record moreover suggests that the district court would have imposed a sentence of less than 240 months
D. holding that a motion under  5k11 permitted a downward departure from the guideline range but that the departure could not extend below the statutory minimum sentence absent an additional motion by the government under  3553e
E. holding that defendants diminished capacity while grounds for departure from the guidelines sentencing range is not grounds for departure below the minimum sentence set by congress
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.