With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". relevant conduct, yielded a base offense level of 32, see U.S.S.G. § 2D 1.1(c)(4), which with the two points consideration for acceptance of responsibility, see id. § 3E1.1, and two more for the safety valve, see id. § 5C1.2(a), resulted in a total offense level of 28. That offense level, with a criminal history category of I, produced a Guidelines prison range of 78 to 97 months. Thus, because no mandatory minimum applied in this safety valve case, and because the 78-month sentence imposed by the district court was greater than the pre-FSA minimum, and was imposed according to the Guidelines without reference to that minimum, any error in not applying the FSA here was harmless with respect to Hilson’s prison sentence. See United States v. Deandrade, 600 F.3d 115, 120 (2d Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>). Nothing in the record, however, indicates

A: holding that a sentence was based on a mandatory statutory minimum sentence even though it was lowered under another statute
B: holding that purported calculation error in mandatory minimum was harmless because challenged sentence was 60 months longer than presumed minimum and was imposed according to guidelines without reference to statutory minimum
C: holding that a district court commits reversible error when it sentences a defendant to less than the statutory minimum where no exception to the mandatory minimum applies
D: holding where the statutory minimum sentence exceeds the guidelines sentence a substantialassistance downward departure begins at the mandatory minimum sentence
B.