With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 798 n. 7 (3d Cir.1994) (concluding that defendant’s age of 57 offered no basis for downward departure). Marin-Castaneda does not assert any extraordinary condition other than the fact that he was 67 years old at the time of sentencing. He does not seem to suffer from any unusual impairments for a man his age; certainly nothing suggesting that home confinement would be as effective as incarceration. In fact, he had never been hospitalized before his stay at the Bayonne Medical Center. Appendix at 98 (referring to Presentence Investigation Report ¶ 37). Absent some extraordinary infirmity, we cannot conclude that the bare fact that Marin-Castaneda was 67 years old would have justified a downward departure by the district court. See United States v. Goff, 20 F.3d 918, 921 (8th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Tucker, 986 F.2d 278, 280

A: holding that section 5h11 does not permit downward departure for 67yearold defendant in good health
B: holding that the district courts denial of a downward departure was an exercise of discretion and therefore not reviewable
C: holding that despite the defendants status as the sole supporter of his wife and three children the district court erred when it gave a downward departure for familial obligations because departure downward in sentencing is not justified for family reasons except in unusual circumstances
D: holding that a defendants substance abuse or addiction does not justify a downward departure
A.