With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". district courts to impose sentences according to the advisory Sentencing Guidelines. We follow our holdings in Hernandez-Castro and Cardenas-Juarez, and Hernandez’s claims fail. V In conclusion, we affirm Hernandez’s conviction for importation of more than fifty grams of methamphetamine, and we affirm his sentence of 120 months, which was mandatory for that conviction. Conversely, we reverse Hernandez’s conviction for possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, and we remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, and REMANDED. 1 . The government claims that it did not bring Hernandez’s silence up again, and Hernandez does not contest this assertion. 2 . See United States v. Silla, 555 F.2d 703, 706-07 (9th Cir.1977) (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Short, 805 F.2d

A: holding where there is no duty to defend there is no duty to indemnify
B: holding that no rational jury could conclude there was no intent to distribute where the defendants possessed 3000 pounds of marijuana
C: holding a rational jury was entitled to conclude that a government officials misstatement regarding her husbands employment was not an inadvertent mistake
D: holding that there is no sixth amendment right to jury sentencing
B.