With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". court’s factual findings. To the extent that the conclusions of the district court contain any error cognizable as a matter of law, said error is limited to the finding that Alaka was responsible for loss from the Krashen account. The fraud leading to the $65,100 loss on behalf of that individual did not appear to involve any of the fake identities, proxy accounts, or withdrawal locations used by the conspiracy elsewhere. Under the deferential review we accord to district court sentencing decisions, however, this error is harmless because the other, properly established fraud totals more than $200,000 and pushes Alaka into the 24-30 month guideline range. Cf. United States v. Abbas, 560 F.3d 660, 667 (7th Cir.2009). But see United States v. Eubanks, 593 F.3d 645, 655-56 (7th Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>). III. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, we

A: holding that a sentence within the properly calculated guideline range is presumptively reasonable
B: holding that imposition of a sentence within the properly calculated range is not reviewable
C: holding that where a properly calculated guideline range did not include the sentence handed down by the district court and the district court did not provide reasons for handing down a nonguideline sentence a guidelinescalculation error was not harmless
D: holding that a sentence within a properly calculated guideline range is usually reasonable
C.