With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the case before us here based the downward departure in part on the discouraged feature of military service. USSG § 5H1.11 (“Military, civic, charitable, or public service; employment-related contributions; and similar prior good works are not ordinarily relevant in determining whether a sentence should be outside the applicable guideline range.”). While discouraged features are not forbidden bases for departures, they are to be relied on only in those exceptional cases that are “outside the heartland of the applicable Guideline.” Koon, 518 U.S. at 109. Here, the district court made no findings of fact to explain how Jared’s case is in any way exceptional. Rather, the court cited to United States v. Pipich, 688 F.Supp. 191 (D.Md.1988), in which the sentencing court, noting h Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). The paucity of published precedent on the

A: holding that the district courts denial of a downward departure was an exercise of discretion and therefore not reviewable
B: holding that military service although exemplary 25 years prior to offense did not justify downward departure
C: holding that note 9 did not authorize downward departure based on drug purity
D: holding that distinguished service record including two purple hearts did not justify downward departure
D.