Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
reduction and determining his criminal history category of III, together with a total offense level of 25, resulted in a Guidelines range of seventy to eighty-seven months. It also noted his seventy-month sentence, together with the consecutive firearm sentence of sixty months, resulted in a total sentence of 130 months. Two years later, Congress enacted the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, which reduced the statutory mandatory minimum sentencing penalties for crack cocaine by significantly reducing the prior crack/powder ratio but which did not apply retroactively to defendants previously sentenced under the prior existing mandatory minimum sentencing statutes. See Pub.L. No. 111-220, 124 Stat. 2372 (Aug. 3, 2010). See also United States v. Lewis, 625 F.3d 1224, 1228 (10th Cir.2010) , cert. denied, — U.S.-, 131 S.Ct. 1790, 179
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a sentence was based on a mandatory statutory minimum sentence even though it was lowered under another statute
B. holding statutory reduction in mandatory minimum penalty based on new ratio is not retroactive
C. holding that even if the minimum mandatory exceeds the statutory maximum the court must impose the minimum mandatory
D. holding that the act is not retroactive
E. holding that the act is retroactive
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.