With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 87 months’ imprisonment. After the District Court overruled the objection to the intended loss amount enhancement, Diallo argued that a departure was warranted. He emphasized the fact that the intended loss calculation of $1.6 million is ten times greater than the actual loss, and is “a gross overstatement of the seriousness of this offense.” App. 28. While the District Court declined to depart from the Guidelines range, it ultimately sentenced Diallo to a bottom-of-the-Guidelines-range sentence of 70 months’ imprisonment. II. On appeal, Diallo challenges the application of the same two enhancements to which he objected at his sentencing hearing. He maintains that (1) his Guidelines range was improperly calculated because of- the District Court’s determination that intended l Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). As the Government has conceded that remand

A: holding unconstitutional the mandatory application of the federal sentencing guidelines
B: holding that retroactive application of advisory sentencing guidelines violated ex post facto clause because guidelines increased minimum sentencing range
C: holding that the earlier guidelines control when retroactive application of the guidelines in effect at sentencing would result in more severe penalties
D: holding that retroactive application of advisory sentencing guidelines violated ex post facto clause because guidelines created sufficient risk of increased sentencing range
C.