With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". CURIAM: Luther Vereen, Jr., appeals from his 262-month sentence entered following his guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute fifty grams or more of crack cocaine. Vereen contends that the sentencing enhancement he received for being a career offender is precluded by the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Booker, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). Applying Booker, we find no sentencing error. To the extent that Vereen argues that his sentence was unreasonable, the Guidelines were correctly calculated, and Vereen was sentenced at the lowest end of the Guideline range. Therefore, we do not find his sentence to be unreasonable. See United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546-47 (4th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we affirm Vereen’s sentence. We

A: holding that nonresident rates are matter of contract that will not be reviewed for reasonableness
B: holding that use of the guidelines in effect at time of sentencing does not violate ex post facto clause after booker
C: holding that sentences post booker would be reviewed for reasonableness
D: holding that district court did not violate ex post facto clause in applying remedial holding of booker at sentencing
C.