With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to counsels’ arguments regarding an enhancement for obstruction of justice, the district judge “state[d] simply that ‘[t]he court adopts the factual findings and guideline applications in the presentence report.’ ” Tackett, 113 F.3d at 614 (second alteration in original). This court concluded that “[t]his is a far cry from the making of a finding for each matter controverted, "as the plain language of Rule 32 requires,” and remanded for resentencing. Id.; see also United States v. Monus, 128 F.3d 376, 396 (6th Cir.1997) (“The law in this circuit clearly prohibits a court faced with a dispute over sentencing factors from adopting the factual findings of the pre-sentence report without making factual determinations of its own.”); United States v. Mandell, 905 F.2d 970, 974 (6th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). We therefore conclude that Corrado and Tocco

A: holding that a district court satisfies its obligation to make factual findings when it explicitly adopts the factual findings set forth in the presentence report
B: holding that a district courts sentence that simply adopted the findings of the presentence report as to controverted factual matters violated rule 32
C: holding district courts adoption of the presentence report constitutes sufficient findings
D: holding that express adoption of factual findings in presentence report is sufficient
B.