With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". contention on appeal is that the District Court improperly held that it did not have authority to grant a downward departure under Section 5K2.0 without an accompanying motion by the Government in support. Inasmuch as this presents a legal issue, we review the District Court’s conclusions of law de novo. United States v. Abuhouran, 161 F.3d 206, 209 (3d Cir.1998). Departures pursuant to Section 5K2.0 do not hinge upon a Government’s motion in support thereof. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5K2.0. There is no such requirement in the Guideline, and courts that have granted such departures have done so without any Government motion. See, e.g., Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81, 116 S.Ct. 2035, 135 L.Ed.2d 392 (1996); United States v. Dominguez, 296 F.3d 192, 195 (3d Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Vitale, 159 F.3d

A: holding that district court had authority to grant section 5k20 downward departure despite governments opposition
B: holding that we may not review a district courts refusal to grant a downward departure unless the court mistakenly believed that it lacked the authority to grant such a departure
C: holding that the district court had the discretion to grant a downward departure for postsentence rehabilitation
D: holding that where mandatory life sentence enhancement was the tail which wags the dog of defendants firearm conviction which raised constitutional due process issues the district court had authority to consider a downward departure under section 5k20 of the guidelines
A.