With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". amendments to the Guidelines have reduced and if the district court has considered the applicable factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and determined that a reduction would be consistent with the policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c); United States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 780-81 (11th Cir.2000). The commentary to U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 instructs that a reduction under § 3582(c)(2) is not authorized when “an amendment ... is applicable to the defendant but the amendment does not have the effect of lowering the defendant’s applicable guideline range because of the operation of another guideline or statutory provision (e.g., a statutory mandatory minimum term of imprisonment).” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, comment. (n.l(A)); see also Moore, 541 F.3d at 1328 (<HOLDING>). In Kimbrough, the Supreme Court held that, in

A: holding a reduction in defendants sentence as a career offender was not authorized under  3582c2 because amendment 706 did not lower his applicable guideline range under the careeroffender guidelines
B: holding that amendment 706 did not have the effect of lowering the applicable guideline range where the defendants received statutory mandatory minimum sentences and thus the defendants were not eligible for relief under  3582
C: holding that while amendment 706 was applica ble to the defendants in question because it reduced their base offense levels a reduction was not authorized because the amendment did not have the effect of lowering their applicable guideline ranges because of the application of the career offender guideline
D: holding that a defendant whose original sentence was based upon the careeroffender guideline and not  2d11 could not receive a sentence reduction based on amendment 706 because it did not have the effect of lowering the applicable guideline range
C.