With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". The district court was not clearly erroneous in refusing to reduce Burley’s offense level. AFFIRMED. 1 . Burley was sentenced on January 11, 1991, so that the requirements of U.S. v. Jones, 899 F.2d 1097, 1102-03 (11th Cir.), cert, denied, — U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 275, 112 L.Ed.2d 230 (1990), would apply requiring defendant be given an opportunity to object after sentence is imposed. Burley has not raised the applicability of Jones, but, in any event, the record permits meaningful review because the same objections raised on appeal had been argued before sentence was imposed. See U.S. v. Cruz, 946 F.2d 122, 124 n. 1 (11th Cir.1991) (noting technical violation of Jones but holding record “sufficient for meaningful appellate review"); U.S. v. Villarino, 930 F.2d 1527, 1528-29 (11th Cir.1991)

A: holding that purpose for requiring findings of fact to support an alimony award is to assist appellate court in providing meaningful review
B: holding that court is not required to state findings of fact and conclusions of law when denying  3582 motion
C: holding that it is not an appellate courts function to make findings of fact
D: holding failure to make explicit findings of fact and conclusions of law did not preclude meaningful appellate review
D.