With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". case because the mitigating factor urged by Withrow was not adequately considered by the Sentencing Commission in formulating the Sentencing Guidelines. We further resolve, however, that the record does not support a finding that Withrow’s criminal conduct was impulsive, spontaneous, or unplanned and thus does not fall squarely within the definitional purview of a single, aberrant act. Accordingly, we AFFIRM. 1 . Although we acknowledge that the district court did not have an opportunity to make a factual determination in this case regarding whether Withrow’s conduct was "aberrant” under any acceptation of that term, the record has been developed adequately for us to conclude that such a finding would not be appropriate here. See United States v. Jones, 52 F.3d 924, 927 (11th Cir.) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 265, 133

A: holding that a plaintiffs prima facie showing of jurisdictional facts is reviewed de novo
B: holding that waiver should be reviewed de novo when decided without trial on undisputed facts
C: holding that no remand is necessary  where no additional facts need be developed and any district court decision of the issue would be reviewed de novo
D: holding question of law applied to undisputed facts reviewed de novo
C.