With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". This argument is foreclosed by our holding in United States v. Driskell, 277 F.3d 150 (2d Cir.2002), that a youthful offender adjudication remains a conviction in substance, regardless of its characterization under New York law. In considering whether a conviction later vacated by a youthful offender adjudication could be used to calculate a defendant’s criminal history pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1 and 4A1.2(d), we examined New York’s treatment of youthful and juvenile offenders, and concluded that a youthful offender adjudication is intended not to absolve youthful offenders of criminal responsibility, but rather, to punish them for their crimes while aiding in their post-conviction rehabilitation. Id. at 155; see also United States v. Matthews, 205 F.3d 544, 548-49 (2d Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). Because an eligible youth is not deemed a

A: holding that district courts should look to the substance of the past conviction when determining whether a youthful offender conviction should be considered an adult conviction for the pur poses of including criminal history points under ussg  4a11 and 4a12
B: holding a court may consider a defendants criminal history even if that history is included in the defendants criminal history category
C: holding that an adjudication under new yorks youthful offender statute does not operate as an expungement of the defendants conviction and the conviction may be considered in calculating criminal history
D: holding that a conviction vacated pursuant to article 440 of the new york criminal procedure law which is neither an expungement statute nor a rehabilitative statute did not constitute a conviction for immigration purposes
C.