Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): 462 F.Sd 237 (3d Cir.2006), for support. We review the District Court’s interpretation of its legal authority at sentencing de novo. United States v. Pojilenko, 416 F.3d 243, 246 (3d Cir.2005). We note, at the outset, that the District Court imposed a sentence below the Advisory Guidelines, albeit for reasons other than the crack/powder cbcaine differential. The recerd demonstrates the District Court clearly understood the mandate of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), and recognized its discretion with respect to the guidelines. The District Court properly considered' and then declined Edge’s request to vary from the guidelines based on the differential. See Kimbrough v. United States, 522 U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 558, 563-65, 169 L.Ed.2d 481 (2007) (<HOLDING>); Gunter, 462 F.3d at 249 (“[T]he District 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the cocaine guidelines  are advisory only (B) holding that even though the guidelines are advisory a district court must accurately calculate and consult the defendants guidelines range (C) recognizing that under the booker remedial regime  the guidelines are no longer mandatory but are only advisory (D) holding that the pennsylvania sentencing guidelines are purely advisory in nature (E) recognizing only that the guidelines must be advisory not that judges may find no facts
Output (English): holding that the pennsylvania sentencing guidelines are purely advisory in nature