Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
primary arguments why the district court’s sentence should be vacated. First, Hernandez contends that because the sentencing guidelines are advisory after Booker, a district court has discretion as to how and when it determines § 3553(f) eligibility. Second, Hernandez argues that because § 3553(f) contains mandatory language, it is invalid after Booker, Hernandez’s Hoofcer-based challenges are foreclosed by recent Ninth Circuit opinions in United States v. Hernandez-Castro, 473 F.3d 1004, 1005-06 (9th Cir.2007), where we held that § 3553(f)(1) was not “rendered advisory by Booker,” and United States v. Cardenas-Juarez, 469 F.3d 1331, 1334-35 (9th Cir.2006), where we held that despite its mandatory language, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) survives Booker, and if triggered 336-37 (8th Cir. 1986) ; United States v. Echeverri-Jaramillo, 777
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that possession of the equivalent of 279 pounds of marijuana valued at 279000 dollars justified the district courts refusal to provide a lesser included instruction
B. holding that due process does not require a lesser included offense instruction of manslaughter where not requested
C. holding that possession of more than thirtyfive pounds of cocaine valued at between 5 and 7 million ruled out a simple possession jury instruction
D. holding that jurys failure to find the defendant guilty of possession of marijuana could not be reconciled with a verdict of guilty of possession of marijuana with intent to purchase
E. holding that possession of more than seven tons of marijuana justified the district courts refusal to provide a simple possession instruction
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.