With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". opportunity to speak about his life experiences. After listening to all of this, the court listed all the section 3553(a) factors, stated it had “taken all of those into account,” and determined “the sentence here which fits the overall need for a sentence to comply with, be enough and not greater than necessary and fulfill each of the separate subparagraphs, is a sentence of 145 months.... [Tjhat’s about the midrange of the advisory guidelines range.” This record establishes the district court properly considered all of the section 3553(a) factors in the context of Thomas’s particular case and adequately explained that in light of those factors, 145 months was the appropriate starting point for its departure analysis. See United States v. Battiest, 553 F.3d 1132, 1136 (8th Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>). B. Thomas next argues his sentence is

A: holding a sentencing court is not obligated to expressly weigh on the record each of the factors set out in  3553a
B: holding that sentence is reasonable when the district court properly addresses sentencing factors of  3553a
C: holding that district court may find facts to support both factors by adopting psr
D: holding sentencing court did not commit procedural error when record showed court had psr heard oral argument from both parties and was aware of section 3553a factors
D.