With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". was eligible. See United States v. Wilson, 244 F.3d 1208, 1216 (10th Cir.2001); see also 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(iii) (prescribing statutory maximum of life imprisonment). Moreover, the court satisfactorily responded to Rollen’s objections at sentencing by explaining the basis for its calculation. United States v. Williams, 374 F.3d 941, 947 n. 9 (10th Cir.2004). Because 1.5 kilograms of crack cocaine is all that is required to arrive at a base offense level of thirty-eight, see U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(1), in order to affirm the district court’s calculation of Rollen’s advisory Guidelines sentencing range, this court must merely be satisfied the record supports a finding that 1.5 kilograms is attributable to Rollen. See United States v. Humphrey, 208 F.3d 1190, 1209-10 (10th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). The trial court admittedly did not calculate

A: holding that the quantity of drugs involved in an offense does not support a downward departure because the legislature intended the quantity of drugs to be a determining factor in varying penalties
B: holding that the district courts failure to instruct the jury on quantity was harmless in part because the testimony regarding quantity was extensive detailed and uncontroverted
C: holding harmless any error in district courts drug quantity determination where undisputed quantity of drugs was enough to place defendant at the base offense level calculated by the district court
D: holding that when the indictment charges that a certain minimum quantity of drugs is involved in the offense proof of that quantity is a fourth element of the offense
C.