Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
explained upward deviation based primarily on Sterling’s criminal history without making an upward departure under the guidelines. This is the proper procedure when imposing a non-guideline sentence. See United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 708 (5th Cir.2006). Whether an upward departure would have been warranted is immaterial, because the court made an upward deviation outside the guidelines range, instead of an upward departure. See id. at 708 n. 3. Sterling’s assertion that the sentence imposed was unreasonable because the court imposed a non-guideline sentence instead of an upward departure story and offense conduct as found by the district court, the extent of the deviation, while large, was not unreasonable. See United States v. Smith, 417 F.3d 483, 491-93 (5th Cir.2005) . AFFIRMED. * Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the defendants 121month sentence was reasonable even though his codefendants sentences ranged from 41 to 53 months imprisonment because the defendant had coordinated the offense
B. holding upward departure from 41 months of imprisonment to statutory maximum of 120 months for unrepentant conartist with long criminal history reasonable
C. holding that dismissal was required where overall length of prosecution was 16 months state was responsible for 13 months of delay and six months of that delay was due to simple neglect
D. holding one and onehalf months establishes causation while three months is too long and does not
E. 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
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.