With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000). The district court sentenced him to a mandatory minimum sentence of sixty months of imprisonment. Allen’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), challenging Allen’s sentence but stating that, in his view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Allen was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. We affirm. Counsel asserts that the district court should have considered sentencing Allen using the guidelines applicable to powder cocaine because of the sentencing disparity created by the 100-to-l ratio of crack to powder cocaine. Allen’s argument is foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Eura, 440 F.3d 625, 633-34 (4th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). Counsel also suggests that the district court

A: holding that after united states v booker 543 us 220 125 sct 738 160 led2d 621 2005 a sentencing court cannot vary from advisory sentencing range by substituting its own crack cocainepowder cocaine ratio for the 100tol ratio established by congress
B: holding that  3582c does not apply to a person seeking resentencing under united states v booker 543 us 220 125 sct 738 160 led2d 621 2005
C: holding that united states v booker 543 us 220 125 sct 738 160 led2d 621 2005 did not alter the standard of review for the interpretation and application of the guidelines
D: holding that blakely and united states v booker 543 us 220 125 sct 738 160 led2d 621 2005 are not retroactive on collateral review
A.