With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". public or private trust characterized by professional or managerial discretion.” Id., comment, (n.l). The enhancement applies to “a case in which the defendant provides sufficient indicia to the victim that the defendant legitimately holds a position of private or public trust when, in fact, the defendant does not.” Id., comment, (n.3). The defendant must, himself, hold a position of trust. United States v. Morris, 286 F.3d 1291, 1297 (11th Cir.2002). “The relationship between the defendant and the victim must be more significant than that of an arm’s-length business transaction.” United States v. Harness, 180 F.3d 1232, 1236 (11th Cir.1999). The evidence must show that the defendant had a special, close, or personal attachment, or fiduciary relationship with the victim. 1th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). C. Rogers argues that the court erred in

A: holding that the fact that the defendant was sentenced to the bottom of the mandatory guidelines range without more was insufficient to satisfy the third prongs requirement that the defendant show a reasonable probability of a lesser sentence under an advisory guideline system
B: holding that sentencing under the mandatory guidelines regime creates a presumption of prejudice that the government must rebut with clear and specific evidence that the district court would not have  sentenced the defendant to a lower sentence if it had treated the guidelines as advisory
C: holding that the fact that the defendant was sentenced at the bottom of the mandatory guideline range without more is insufficient to satisfy the third prongs requirement that the defendant show a reasonable probability of a lesser sentence under an advisory guideline system accord united states v cartwright 413 f3d 1295 1301 11th cir2005
D: holding a sentence within the advisory guidelines range is presumptively reasonable
A.