With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the parameters for departure, outside of which a court cannot go without assuming the risk of acting beyond permissible limits.”). Existing caselaw is unequivocal that being an exemplary parent or spouse is not sufficient to take a case out of the “heartland.” See United States v. Sweeting, 213 F.3d 95, 102 (3d Cir.2000) (ruling that though defendant “appears devoted to her children and is a ‘substantial positive influence’ on their lives,” no departure was warranted); United States v. Tejeda, 146 F.3d 84, 87 (2d Cir.1998) (“The existence of a stable family (a wife and two children)— something that is by no means extraordinary—does not satisfy the ‘exceptional hardship’ criterion warranting family circumstance departure.”); United States v. Bell, 974 F.2d 537, 538-39 (4th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Shoupe, 929 F.2d 116, 121

A: holding that the defendants role in helping to produce a stable family and the fact that incarceration would likely disrupt his spousal and parental relationships is insufficient to grant a downward departure
B: holding that the district court had the discretion to grant a downward departure for postsentence rehabilitation
C: holding that we may not review a district courts refusal to grant a downward departure unless the court mistakenly believed that it lacked the authority to grant such a departure
D: 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
A.