With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". unavailing. See id. at 708 & n. 3. Sterling further argues that the sentence was unreasonable because the court did not adequately consider the mitigating factors that his offense conduct was of middling seriousness, that he had established family relationships and was affected by his brother’s death, that the best way to prevent recidivism was to treat his drug addiction, and that the sentence would tend to lessen guilty pleas and make the criminal justice system function less smoothly. Because Sterling has not shown that the district court’s greater consideration of other non-mitigating factors was unreasonable, he has not shown that the decision to make an upward deviation from the guidelines range was unreasonable. See United States v. Reinhart, 442 F.3d 857, 863-64 (5th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). Given the seriousness of Sterling’s criminal

A: holding that sentence is reasonable when the district court properly addresses sentencing factors of  3553a
B: holding that the district court is not required to state on the record that it has explicitly considered each of the  3553a factors or to discuss each of the  3553a factors
C: holding upward deviation reasonable where supported by proper factors even though some  3553a factors operated in defendants favor
D: recognizing same factors
C.