With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Steele contends that the district court was required by United States Sentencing Guidelines § 5G1.3(b) to run his entire federal sentence concurrently with his undischarged state term of imprisonment. We disagree. Not all of Steele’s state offenses were considered as relevant conduct to increase his offense level. Therefore, § 5G1.3(b) and its requirement of a fully concurrent term are inapplicable. See United States v. Kimble, 107 F.3d 712, 714 (9th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). To the extent Steele raises an argument for a

A: holding that  5g13c applied because the defendants case involved multiple undischarged terms of imprisonment only one of which was used to enhance his instant sentence
B: holding that   3584a allows the district judge to specify the sequence of service of terms of imprisonment only when sentences are imposed at the same time or the other sentence is an undischarged term of imprisonment to which the defendant is already subject 
C: holding that  5gl3b does not apply when the undischarged term of imprisonment results from multiple offenses only some of which were taken into account in determining the defendants offense level
D: holding that the concurrent sentencing requirement of  5g13b  is only triggered when there is an undischarged term of imprisonment at the time of sentencing
C.