With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 1206-07 — we are also unpersuaded. As the record shows, the advisory guidelines range that is applicable in the instant case was the 10-year mandatory minimum sentence, not the range of 57 to 71 months that would have applied without the mandatory minimum sentence. See U.S.S.G. § 5Gl.l(b) (providing that when a statutorily required minimum sentence is greater than the maximum of the applicable guidelines range, the statutorily required minimum sentence shall be the guidelines sentence). Thus, the government would have requested an improper sentence had it requested a sentence within the range of 57 to 71 months because the district court was not permitted to enter a sentence below the statutory mandatory minimum. See United States v. Castaing-Sosa, 530 F.3d 1358, 1360 (11th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>). Further, although the government did not

A: holding that a sentencing court is required by 18 usc  3583g to revoke the defendants term of supervised release  unless defendant could come under the exception in 18 usc  3583d
B: holding that a district court lacks authority to pierce a statutory minimum sentence under ussg  5k11
C: holding that a motion under  5k11 permitted a downward departure from the guideline range but that the departure could not extend below the statutory minimum sentence absent an additional motion by the government under  3553e
D: holding that a district court is not authorized to sentence a defendant below the statutory minimum unless the government filed a substantial assistance motion pursuant to 18 usc  3553e and ussg  5k11 or the defendant falls within the safetyvalve of 18 usc  3553f
D.