With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". our cases dealing with reasonableness under Booker have emphasized again and again that for a sentence to be reasonable a district court must clearly articulate the reasons for its ultimate sentencing decision. Richardson further clarified that if a defendant provides mitigating evidence, the record must: (1) indicate that the court considered it and (2) provide the court’s reasons for rejecting the defendant’s argumen aining that the sentencing court’s consideration of “all of the relevant section 8558(a) factors” must be “clear from the record”). Even assuming, however, that the record indicates that the district court considered all of Vonner’s arguments, there is nothing in the record that explains why the district court rejected those arguments. See Richardson, 437 F.3d at 554 (<HOLDING>). The district court here merely provided a

A: holding that there is no error when a district judge does not explicitly discuss an argument if it is apparent from the record that the judge fully understood the argument on the point and implicitly considered and rejected it in imposing a lenient belowguidelines term of imprisonment
B: holding that when a defendant raises a nonfrivolous argument for a lower sentence the record must show that the district court considered it and explained the basis for rejecting it
C: holding that the record must reflect both that the district judge considered the defendants argument and that the judge explained the basis for rejecting it
D: holding that only a district judge in the charging district and not a magistrate judge in that district may review the release order of a magistrate judge in the arresting district
C.