With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". murders for revenge. The court also noted that a life sentence for Mendez was in line with the sentences received by Mendez’s co-defendants. The district court carefully considered Mendez’s legal and factual arguments and found none persuasive. The court thus determined that it would have imposed the same sentence had it known the guidelines were advisory rather than mandatory. We have held that a properly calculated guidelines sentence is entitled to a rebuttable presumption of reasonableness. United States v. Mykytiuk, 415 F.3d 606, 608 (7th Cir.2005). Mendez has provided no reason to rebut that presumption, and the district court has given a very thorough analysis of the section 3553(a) factors in support of that sentence. See United States v. Dean, 414 F.3d 725, 729 (7th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). Under the law of this circuit, that is enough

A: holding that sentence is reasonable when the district court properly addresses sentencing factors of  3553a
B: holding that the sentencing judge need only provide an adequate statement of the judges reasoning consistent with section 3553a for thinking that the sentence selected is indeed appropriate for the particular defendant
C: holding that the courts statement that the sentence was sufficient and a greater sentence is not necessary did not contradict the requirements of  3553a
D: holding that a sentencing judge would commit a statutory error  if the judge failed to consider the applicable guidelines range  as well as the other factors listed in section 3553a
B.