With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(o), upon motion of the defendant or the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, or on its own motion, the court may reduce the term of imprisonment, after considering the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent they are applicable, if such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). CLAY, Circuit Judge, concurring. Although I concur in the result reached by the majority, I hesitate to concur in the reasoning of the majority opinion because of the possibility that the district court lacked the jurisdiction to impose a sentence below the applicable statutory minimum sentence. See Melendez v. United States, 518 U.S. 120, 130-31, 116 S.Ct. 2057, 135 L.Ed.2d 427 (1996) (<HOLDING>). However, the jurisdictional issue, which was

A: holding that when no statutory exception applies  the district court lacks the authority to impose a sentence less than the statutory mandatory minimum
B: holding that a motion under  5k11 permitted a downward departure from the guideline range but that the departure could not extend below the statutory minimum sentence absent an additional motion by the government under  3553e
C: holding that a district court is not authorized to sentence a defendant below the statutory minimum unless the government filed a substantial assistance motion pursuant to 18 usc  3553e and ussg  5k11 or the defendant falls within the safetyvalve of 18 usc  3553f
D: holding that a district court lacks authority to pierce a statutory minimum sentence under ussg  5k11
D.