With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Substantial variances require extraordinary circumstances Defendant argued it is inconsistent with Booker “to require a sentence which constitutes a substantial variance from the Sentencing Guidelines to be justified by extraordinary circumstances or to presume that a within the guidelines sentence is reasonable” (Court File No. 64, p. 3). However, this is not the law in the Sixth Circuit. If the Court wished to impose a sentence substantially below the Sentenc ing Guidelines, it would have to “offer a compelling justification based on the relevant § 3553(a) factors that is in proportion to the extent of the variance.” United States v. Borho, 485 F.3d 904, 912 (6th Cir.2007). The compelling justification cannot be based on factors already taken into account by the Guidelines. See id. (<HOLDING>). It is not inconsistent with Booker to involve

A: holding that lack of justiciable interest resulted in lack of standing to pursue claim and that lack of standing deprived the trial court of jurisdiction to act
B: holding unreasonable an extraordinary variance based on factors such as the defendants lack of criminal history his health conditions and the lack of improper interactive behavior with children
C: holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing an upward variance after finding that the defendants criminal history category of i understated the seriousness of his criminal history
D: holding a court may consider a defendants criminal history even if that history is included in the defendants criminal history category
B.