With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". presumptively unreasonable. Thus, in a case involving a level 18 offense committed by a category I offender, a more than minimal planning departure would be reasonable only if the sentence imposed did not exceed 41 months — the high end of the guideline range applicable to level 20 offenses committed by category I offenders. In order to justify a departure of a greater magnitude than that, the district court would have to explain why more than minimal planning should make a greater difference in the context before it than it makes under the various guidelines where it is deemed a specific offense characteristic, or else explain why the case involves aggravating factors other than a defendant’s more than minimal planning. Cf. United States v. Shuman, 902 F.2d 873, 876-77 (11th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). We do not suggest that this approach for

A: holding that arithmetical error that resulted in an increase to a defendants base offense level pursuant to the sentencing guidelines affected his substantial rights even though the resulting sentence was within the range for the correct offense level
B: holding that no offense alleged where affidavit described offense as felony
C: holding that the degree of a departure based on conduct described as a specific offense characteristic in inapplicable guidelines was reasonable when the departure amounted to an increase in offense level no greater than that provided in the inapplicable guidelines
D: holding that defendants may agree to departure from sentencing guidelines in plea bargain
C.