Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): (“The strength of the government’s case against the defendant is probably the most critical factor in determining whether an error affected the verdict.”). II. Sentencing Defendant argues that his case should be remanded for resentencing in compliance with the retroactive application of changes in the Guidelines pertaining to crack cocaine. Defendant’s offense level, however, was set not by U.S.C.G. § 2D1.1, the amended provision, but rather by U.S.C.G. § 4B1.1, because of his status as a career offender. Cf. United States v. Ogman, 535 F.3d 108, 108 (2d Cir.2008) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). We nevertheless observe, and the Government 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that reduced career offender status was nonetheless based the career offender guidelines (B) holding that after united states v booker 543 us 220 125 sct 738 160 led2d 621 2005 a sentencing court cannot vary from advisory sentencing range by substituting its own crack cocainepowder cocaine ratio for the 100tol ratio established by congress (C) holding that sentences imposed under the career offender guideline are not eligible for remand under kimbrough and taylor because a sentence under the career offender guideline raises no kimbrough problem (D) holding that it is not necessary to remand for resentencing under kimbrough v united states  us  128 sct 558 169 led2d 481 2007 when a defendants sentence was not the result of the 100tol powder to crack ratio but rather resulted from his status as a career offender under uscg  4blla (E) holding that the career offender guideline could not directly apply when there was an unsentenced conviction but allowing the district court on remand to consider departing from the guidelines in order to sentence a defendant whose conduct delayed his convictions as if the career offender provision applied
Output (English): holding that reduced career offender status was nonetheless based the career offender guidelines