With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". we have not decided under what, if any, circumstances a § 5K2.0 departure is appropriate to permit a defendant to make restitution payments after conviction. We join the Second, Fourth, Sixth, and Seventh circuits in holding that a sen-tencmg judge may not depart to facilitate payment of restitution. See United States v. Broderson, 67 F.3d 452, 458 (2d Cir.1995) (“Ordinarily, payment of restitution is not an appropriate basis for downward departure under Section 5K2.0.”); United States v. Bolden, 889 F.2d 1336, 1340 (4th Cir.1989) (“[W]e do not think that the economic desirability of attempting to preserve [defendant’s] job so as to enable him to make restitution warrants a downward adjustment from the guidelines.”); United States v. Seacott, 15 F.3d 1380, 1388-89 (7th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Harpst, 949 F.2d 860, 863

A: holding that restitution is not a proper ground for departing downward from the guidelines range
B: holding district court committed no significant procedural error despite departing downward from the guideline range for multiple reasons without explaining the weight it was attributing to each reason
C: holding that a sentencing court did not abuse its discretion in departing from the guidelines range when the record supported the courts conclusion that the defendant was a danger to the community because he had been convicted of a crime that involved a threat against another person
D: holding that deportable alien status is not a ground for departing downward
A.