With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". But a district court is not “required to consider ... an argument that a guideline is unworthy of application in any case because it was promulgated without adequate deliberation.” Id. at 367-68 (emphasis in original). Under the presumption of reasonableness that we give to a district court’s within-Guidelines sentence, “we will not second-guess [a district court’s] decision! ] ... simply because the particular Guideline is not empirically-based.” Janosko, 355 Fed. Appx. at 895 (quoting United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 367 (5th Cir.2009)). The district court here explicitly considered the § 3553(a) factors when sen r.2008) (treating multiple convictions as a single offense for purposes of § 5G1.3(b)); and United States v. Kimble, 107 F.3d 712, 714-15 (9th Cir.1997)

A: holding that due to statute defendant cannot collaterally attack prior convictions used to enhance sentence unless in violation of the right to counsel
B: holding that prior felony drug convictions that fall within the conspiracy period may be used to enhance the defendants sentence if the conspiracy continued after his earlier convictions were final
C: holding that where defendants seek to challenge predicate convictions used to enhance current sentence proper avenue for relief is through pcr proceeding
D: holding that  5g13c applied where defendants undischarged sentence resulted from multiple convictions only one of which was used to enhance his instant sentence
D.