With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 833 (5th Cir. 1997) (although "the district court should consider each intermediate criminal history category before arriving at the sentence it settles upon[,]... the district court need not mechanically discuss each intermediate criminal history category” where the "reasons for rejecting the intermediate categories will clearly be implicit”) (internal quotation omitted); United States v. Collins, 104 F.3d 143, 145 (8th Cir.1997) ("Although the district court did not specifically mention that it had considered each intermediate criminal history category, its findings were adequate to explain and support the departure in this particular case.”); United States v. Maurice, 69 F.3d 1553, 1559 (11th Cir.1995) (quoted in text below); United States v. Harris, 44 F.3d 1206, 1212 (3d Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>) (internal quotation and citation omitted);

A: holding that request for departure in sentencing based on a criminal history category that overstated defendants record violated plea agreement that prohibited departure requests but did not stipulate to a specific criminal history category
B: holding that a resentencing court may reconsider a defendants criminal history category as long as the appellate court did not expressly or implicitly limit  the remand to only a portion of the sentence
C: holding a court may consider a defendants criminal history even if that history is included in the defendants criminal history category
D: holding that circuit does not require the district court to go through a ritualistic exercise in which it mechanically discusses each criminal history category it rejects en route to the category that it selects as long as the reasons for rejecting each lesser category are clear from the record as a whole
D.