With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". district court to comply with its obligation ... is that it give enough reasoning to allow the reviewing court to evaluate its decision.” United States v. Chatmon, 324 F.3d 889, 893 (7th Cir.2003). This case bears similarity to the facts we examined in Chatmon. 324 F.3d at 889. In that case the defendant appealed the district court’s finding regarding the quantity of crack he possessed. In affirming the district court’s finding we stated, “the district court’s explanation, after hearing extended argument from the parties, that it ‘relied on the trial testimony in this matter for ... determination of drug 'quantity1 is adequate to allow for appellate review, and so we need not remand for further findings.” Id. at 893; see also United States v. Brumfield, 301 F.3d 724, 735 (7th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). As in Chatmon, here the district court

A: holding that if the government fails to object to the presentence report the district courts reliance on the report is reviewed for plain error
B: holding that express adoption of factual findings in presentence report is sufficient
C: holding that a district courts sentence that simply adopted the findings of the presentence report as to controverted factual matters violated rule 32
D: holding district courts adoption of the presentence report constitutes sufficient findings
D.