With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". -, 131 S.Ct. 134, 178 L.Ed.2d 81, and cert. denied, — U.S. —, 131 S.Ct. 136, 178 L.Ed.2d 83 (2010); United States v. Molina, 469 F.3d 408, 416 (5th Cir.2006); United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 553 (5th Cir.2006); see United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 517, 519 (5th Cir.2005) (dictum) ("After circulating this opinion to all members of the court, this panel has benefit-ted from and incorporated into the opinion many of their comments.... Booker contemplates that, with the mandatory use of the Guidelines excised, the Sixth Amendment will not impede a sentencing judge from finding all facts relevant to sentencing.”). 8 . At least five other circuits share our position, with no circuit appearing to take the opposite view. United States v. Treadwell, 593 F.3d 990, 1017-18 (9th Cir.) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 131 S.Ct. 280, 178

A: holding that apprendi has not affected the district courts authority to determine facts for sentencing at or below the statutory maximum
B: holding sentences need only be below the statutory maximum
C: holding that a withinguideline sentence was reasonable in part because it was well below the statutory maximum
D: holding that a defendants sentence was reasonable in part because it was well below the statutory maximum
B.