With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". was imposing a sentence that varied from the guidelines range based on its consideration of the § 3553(a) factors. It is not clear from the record whether the district court granted a six-level variance because it determined that a sentence of seventy-eight months was appropriate notwithstanding the guidelines range, or whether, instead, the district court would have granted a six level variance from the advisory guidelines range even if the guidelines range had been lower, i.e., if the position of trust enhancement had not been applied. Under these circumstances, we hold that the application of the position of trust enhancement was error, that the error was plain, and that the error affected Evans’s substantial rights. See United States v. Armstead, 552 F.3d 769, 785 (9th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>). We also conclude that the error seriously

A: holding that although the guidelines should be the starting point and the initial benchmark of calculating a proper sentence the district court should then consider all of the  3553a factors to determine whether they support the sentence requested by a party
B: holding that an error in guideline calculation seriously affected the defendants substantial rights because the starting point for consideration of  3553a factors was five months higher than it should have been
C: holding that a plain error did not seriously affect the fairness integrity or public reputation of the judicial proceedings even though the error was assumed to have affected substantial rights
D: holding that plain error exists when 1 an error was committed 2 that was plain 3 that affected the defendants substantial rights and 4 the error seriously affects the fairness integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings
B.