With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Garrett Phillip Harr appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 37-month sentence imposed following his conviction for conspiracy to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Harr contends that the 37-month sentence, which is at the bottom of the applicable Sentencing Guidelines range, is substantively unreasonable because the drug trafficking Guidelines themselves are too high and because the district court improperly weighed the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. The district court was not required to reject the drug trafficking Guidelines. See United States v. Mitchell, 624 F.3d 1023, 1030 (9th Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>). In addition, the “weight to be given the

A: holding that sentencing court had discretion under sentencing statute noting that the legislature has demonstrated its ability to use restrictive language when it desires to do so
B: holding that the sentencing judge could consider the defendants subsequent arrest even though the charges were dismissed during sentencing
C: recognizing that sentencing judges have the discretion to reject any sentencing guideline but no judge is required to do so
D: holding a sentencing court is not required to grant probation
C.