With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of using a firearm during a robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii), to run consecutively; 25 years (300 months) for his second such conviction, id. § 924(c)(1)(C)(i), to run consecutively; and 124 months for his third such conviction, to run consecutively. The last conviction, Warren’s third for using a firearm during a crime of violence, carries a statutory minimum sentence of 25 years, but the court granted the government’s motion for a downward departure under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) because of Warren’s substantial assistance (his testimony against Thacker). The guideline range was calculated correctly, and he was sentenced at the low end of it. No evidence in this record indicates that this sentence was unreason able. Compare United States v. Mykytiuk, 415 F.3d 606 (7th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>), with United States v. Rita, 177 Fed.Appx. 357

A: holding that the defendants sentence was within the guidelines range and therefore presumptively reasonable
B: holding that sentence within guidelines range enjoys a presumption of reasonableness
C: holding that we may apply a presumption of reasonableness to a sentence within the guidelines range
D: holding that when a court miscalculates the guideline range yet imposes a sentence that falls within a properly calculated guideline range the sentence enjoys a presumption of reasonableness
B.