With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 125 S.Ct. 738. In the Booker remedial opinion, the Supreme Court determined that the constitutional violation would be cured by modifying the federal sentencing statute to make the Guidelines effectively advisory. Id. at 245, 125 S.Ct. 738. The range of choice in sentencing dictated by the facts of the case has been significantly broadened. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. -, -, 128 S.Ct. 586, 602, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007) (finding a sentence outside the Guidelines to be reasonable); Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. -, -, 128 S.Ct. 558, 570, 169 L.Ed.2d 481 (2007) (noting that courts may vary from Guidelines ranges based solely on policy considerations, including disagreements with the Guidelines); Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. -, -, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2465, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007) (<HOLDING>); Cunningham v. California, 549 U.S. 270, -,

A: holding that plain error review is used for unpreserved challenges to the method by which the district court arrived at a sentence including arguments that the sentencing court failed to explain adequately the sentence imposed under the statutory factors in  3553a
B: holding that a district court may consider arguments that the guidelines sentence itself fails properly to reflect  3553a considerations
C: holding that sentence is reasonable when the district court properly addresses sentencing factors of  3553a
D: 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
B.