With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the Government and the defendant “agree that a specific sentence or sentencing range is the appropriate'disposition of the case, or that a particular provision of the Sentencing Guidelines, or policy statement, or sentencing factor does or does not apply (such a recommendation or request binds the court once the court accepts the plea agreement).” Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(c)(1)(C). Banks’s plea agreement contains no such provision. More fundamentally, in Tyler and Freeman, the plea agreements at issue were “based on” § 2D1.1. See Tyler, 2012 WL 1396550, at *4; Freeman, 131 S.Ct. at 2699, 2700 (Sotomayor, J., concurring). In contrast, here Banks’s sentence as it stands today is based, not on § 2D1.1, but on § 4B1.1. As such, Tyler, and Freeman, are inapposite. See Warner, 565 Fed.Appx. at 313 (<HOLDING>). III. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons,

A: holding that district court did not err in determining that cocaine base was crack cocaine based on chemical analysis identifying cocaine base together with competent lay testimony bridging the evidentiary gap between cocaine base and crack cocaine and refusing to require showing of smokeability ie water solubility or melting point for purposes of establishing crack cocaine under the guidelines since smokeability distinguishes cocaine base from powder cocaine not from crack
B: holding that the recent amendment to the crack cocaine guidelines does not qualify defendant for a sentencing reduction under  3582c2 because defendant was originally sentenced pursuant to the guideline range for career offenders
C: holding that the defendants sentence was based on the career offender guidelines despite the fact that the district court calculated an offense level pursuant to the crack guidelines
D: holding that freeman is inapplicable to defendants sentenced under  4b11 seeking a sentence reduction based on amendments to the guidelines for crack cocaine offenses
D.