With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the offense” under § 3553(a)(1). Cf. Guidry, 462 F.3d at 377 (concluding that the district court’s finding that Guidry was not a full-time drug dealer was belied by the evidence in the record and testimony at trial). Here, the sentence imposed by the district court is commensurate with the Guidelines sentence applicable to someone who has trafficked only thirty-five to fifty grams of crack; the amount that Trina personally sold to Regina Booker alone is more than five times this amount. • Disparity: The district court failed to consider that the sentence it imposed, which constituted a 49% reduction from the Guidelines minimum, would create significant disparity between Trina and other defendants with similar criminal histories convicted of similar offenses. See Guidry, 462 F.3d at 378 (<HOLDING>); cf. Rita, 127 S.Ct. at 2464-65 (“[I]t is fair

A: holding sentence unreasonable when it fails to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparity among defendants with similar criminal histories who commit similar crimes
B: holding that the district courts failure to give the instruction was not error given that the defendants theory was fully explained  in his opening and closing argument
C: holding that sentencing disparity produced by substantial assistance departures was intended by congress and is thus not a proper sentencing consideration under section 3553a6
D: holding that the district courts failure to give consideration to the sentencing disparity that would result was another reason the defendants sentence was unreasonable
D.