With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Crosby, 397 F.3d 103 (2d Cir.2005) [Doc. # 44], and defendant’s request for resentencing [Doc. # 49]. Defendant was sentenced principally to 121 months imprisonment on July 9, 2003, after pleading guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and distribution of cocaine and cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (Count One), and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (Count Three). See Judgment [Doc. # 36], For the reasons that follow, defendant’s request for resentencing is denied because the Court concludes it would not have imposed a different sentence if it had sentenced Colon in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). See Crosby, 397 F.3d at 118 (<HOLDING>). I. Crosby Standard Colon did not challenge

A: holding that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to modify the sentence originally imposed by imposing an additional term of fifteen years suspended sentence
B: holding that resentencing is not required if court concludes the sentence would have been essentially the same as originally imposed
C: holding civil restitution judgment that was originally imposed as part of a criminal sentence nondisehargeable
D: holding when it is not clear that the sentencing judge would have imposed the same sentence if a lower sentencing range would have been available remand is required
B.