With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". He received a sentence of 16 months on Count 36 (traveling in interstate commerce to distribute crack cocaine in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1952 and 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846). All sentences are to run concurrently. These sentences fell within the Guideline ranges. Moreover, the district court gave Rackstraw a two-level reduction for being a minor participant under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b) and sentenced him at the bottom of the applicable guideline range. Any disparity between the sentence imposed on Green and that imposed on Rack-straw is easily explained by the fact that Green cooperated with the government in the prosecution of participants in William and Fisher’s drug operations, while Rackstraw did not. Cf. United States v. Trujillo, 906 F.2d 1456, 1464-65 (10th Cir.) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 962, 111 S.Ct. 396,

A: holding that denial of reduction for acceptance of responsibility was a penalty which could not be imposed for defendants assertion of fifth amendment privilege
B: holding that admission of a postal inspectors testimony about an oral confession by a defendants codefendant violated the defendants sixth amendment right to crossexamine his codefendant who was unavailable because the codefendant asserted his right not to testify
C: holding that defendant should be resentenced where district court imposed a sentence under an erroneously calculated guidelines range  even where the sentence imposed fell within the correct range
D: holding that lesser sentence imposed on codefendant did not constitute abuse of discretion where defendant was sentenced within the statutory and guideline range and where codefendant received reduction for acceptance of responsibility and for being a minimal participant
D.