Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
of the trial judge, and therefore not subject to change by an appellate court, decisions apparently based upon a mistake of law or fact are reviewable under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)(2) (1988).” United States v. Zine, 906 F.2d 776, 777 (D.C.Cir.1990) (per curiam). The majority decides that we cannot review Hazel’s challenge in this case because of the limitation in § 3742(a)(3). There is no doubt that, once a threshold decision to depart has been made, a defendant is only allowed to challenge the reasonableness of a sentence in cases of upward departures under § 3742(a)(3). See United States v. Wright, 895 F.2d 718, 721 (11th Cir.1990) (observing that to allow review of reasonableness under subsection (a)(2) would nullify (a)(3)); United States v. Franz, 886 F.2d 973, 978-79 (7th Cir.1989) . But this feared redundancy would only exist
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding unconstitutional the mandatory application of the federal sentencing guidelines
B. holding that one could not automatically read every departurerelated decision as an incorrect application of the guidelines without rendering  3742a3 redundant
C. holding that the mandatory nature of the united states sentencing guidelines resulted in violations of the sixth amendment right to a jury trial and rendering the guidelines advisory
D. holding that the mere mandatory application of the guidelines  the district courts belief that it was required to impose a guidelines sentence  constitutes error
E. holding that even without booker constitutional error in the district courts application of the guidelines there could be nonconstitutional error where the court applied the guidelines in a mandatory fashion
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.