With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". for a downward departure because he argues the district court erroneously combined the substantive contours applicable to his requests for a departure and variant sentence, the record does not support this argument. Rather, the record establishes that the district court considered what it was required to consider in determining whether a departure was warranted and there is no indication that the district court misunderstood its authority to depart. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) § 5H1.6, p.s. (2012) (“In sentencing a defendant convicted of an offense other than an offense [not at issue on this appeal], family ties and responsibilities are not ordinarily relevant in determining whether a departure may be warranted.”); see also Gall, 552 U.S. at 49-50, 128 S.Ct. 586 (<HOLDING>); United States v. Brewer, 520 F.3d 367, 371

A: holding that despite the advisory nature of the sentencing guidelines they remain the starting point and the initial benchmark of a district courts sentencing analysis the district court should begin all sentencing proceedings by correctly calculating the applicable guidelines range and keep that range in mind throughout the sentencing process and that failing to calculate or improperly calculating the guidelines range  or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentenceemdashincluding an explanation for any deviation from the guidelines range constitutes significant procedural error 
B: holding that sentence is reasonable when the district court properly addresses sentencing factors of  3553a
C: holding that although the guidelines should be the starting point and the initial benchmark of calculating a proper sentence the district court should then consider all of the  3553a factors to determine whether they support the sentence requested by a party
D: recognizing that if a guidelines error did not affect the district courts selection of the sentence imposed the sentence should be affirmed
C.