With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Maria Luisa Lopez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 63-month sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for importation of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Lopez contends that the district court procedurally erred in a number of ways when it denied her a minor role adjust ment and sentenced her to 63 months m prison. We need not determine whether there were any procedural errors because-it is apparent from the record that any error was harmless. See United States v. Leal-Vega, 680 F.3d 1160, 1170 (9th Cir.2012) (<HOLDING>). The district court imposed a two-level

A: holding that the district court normally should begin with a guidelines calculation
B: recognizing that harmless error review applies when the court errs in the guidelines calculation
C: holding that even if a trial court errs in a ruling on the admissibility of evidence we will reverse only if the error is inconsistent with substantial justice and that the error was harmless
D: holding any possible error in a guidelines calculation harmless where this court was confident  that the district court could  and would  impose the same sentence again under the nowadvisory guidelines regime
B.