With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". ACCA sentence was still appropriate, relying in part on Taste’s three Massachusetts “larceny from the person” convictions, it agreed to resentencing in light of Simmons. Accordingly, the district court, accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation, granted the § 2255 motion as to Taste’s Simmons claim, vacated the judgment, and ordered resentencing. At resentencing in July 2014, the district court concluded that Taste’s prior Massachusetts convictions for larceny from the person were violent felonies for purposes of the ACCA, and again applied the enhanced sentence of 180 months’ imprisonment. The district court imposed the same conditions of supervised release as it did at the first sentencing, including the following special condition: The defendant shall subm (1st Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). Next, Taste argues the district court erred

A: holding district courts erroneous delegation of authority to probation officer to determine maximum number of drug tests to be administered was not structural error and therefore did not constitute plain error
B: holding that because of unsettled case law district courts error was not obvious and therefore not plain
C: holding that any error was harmless and thus not plain error
D: holding error was structural because of the difficulty of assessing the effect of the error
A.