With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". In doing so, the district court thoroughly addressed the nature and circumstances of Resendiz’s offense. Although the district court did not explicitly address counsel’s arguments regarding his family, work history and lack of criminal history prior to imposing sentence, the district court clearly listened to counsel’s arguments and did state that it considered Resendiz’s advisory Guidelines range, which included Resendiz’s category I criminal history, but found that a sentence in the middle of that range was appropriate. Having expressly indicated that it considered the Guidelines and the nature and circumstances of Resendiz’s crime in fashioning an appropriate sentence, the district court undertook a sufficient § 3553(a) analysis in sentencing Re-sendiz. Cf. Johnson, 445 F.3d at 345 (<HOLDING>). We conclude that the district court did not

A: holding that appellate court review sentences for unreasonableness in light of the  3553a factors
B: holding that nothing in booker or elsewhere requires the district court 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 that sentence is reasonable when the district court properly addresses sentencing factors of  3553a
D: recognizing that many of the  3553a factors are already incorporated into any guidelines determination and the  3553a factors can themselves overlap
D.