With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Without briefing or argument from counsel on the issue, the district court sentenced Coffey to a reduced sentence of 262 months, the bottom of the newly calculated Guidelines range following a two-level reduction under the amended crack cocaine Guidelines as allowed by Amendment 706. Coffey appeals his new sentence, and we affirm. Coffey argues that the Supreme Court’s reasoning in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), making the Guidelines advisory, should apply to give district courts discretion to reduce a sentence below the newly calculated Guidelines range when resentencing a defendant pursuant to § 3582(c)(2). As Coffey recognizes, we have rejected his argument, see United States v. Starks, 551 F.3d 839, 843 (8th Cir.) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 129 S.Ct. 2746, 174

A: holding that where the defendants existing sentence was ultimately determined by the old crack cocaine guidelines  resentencing is within the discretion of the district court
B: holding that a district court resentencing a defendant based on the retroactive change in the crack cocaine guidelines pursuant to  3582c2 lacks authority to sentence a defendant below the newly calculated guidelines range and need not hold an evidentiary hearing on the issue
C: holding that the defendants sentence was based on the career offender guidelines despite the fact that the district court calculated an offense level pursuant to the crack guidelines
D: holding that  3582c2 does not authorize sentence below minimum of amended guidelines range
B.