With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 306 F.3d 295 (6th Cir.2002), to hold that conduct that warrants a sentence enhancement under § 2Dl.l(b)(l) necessarily precludes the application of a “safety valve” reduction under § 501.2(a). After applying all of the relevant factors, the district court ultimately sentenced defendant to sixty months of imprisonment, followed by four years of supervised release, and a $600 special assessment. Defendant appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for a “safety valve” reduction under U.S.S.G. § 501.2(a). II. Analysis We review a district court’s interpretation of a sentencing guideline de novo and “a court’s factual determination of whether a ... guideline applies in a particular case under a clearly erroneous standard.” United States v. Adu, 82 F.3d 119, 124 (6th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). In United States v. Stewart, 306 F.3d at 327

A: holding that we review for clear error a district courts factual determination of the conduct in which defendant engaged but that we review de novo the district courts determination of whether that conduct constitutes relevant conduct for purposes of ussg  1b13a2
B: holding that we review a district courts refusal to apply ussg  5c12 for clear error because it is a factual finding
C: holding that we review for clear error the bankruptcy courts factual findings
D: holding that we review for clear error a district courts factual determination of a defendants role in an offense for purposes of applying ussg  3b11a
B.