Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
The record shows that the district court considered the § 3553(a) sentencing factors in denying Perez’s motion for reduction. The district court was not required to expressly refer to the specific § 3553(a) factors or provide more specific reasons in support of its determination that a reduction was not warranted. See Whitebird, 55 F.3d at 1010; Henderson, 636 F.3d at 718. As for Perez’s argument that the district court should have applied the analysis in Pepper, the holding in Pepper applied to the consideration of post-sentencing reha bilitation when resentencing after a defendant’s sentence had been vacated on appeal, not on a motion to reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2). See 562 U.S. at 490, 131 S.Ct. 1229; United States v. Harris, 643 Fed.Appx. 340, 341-42 (5th Cir. 2016) . AFFIRMED. * Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing this distinction in case with eeoc intervention
B. recognizing this distinction
C. recognizing the boggs distinction
D. recognizing this distinction between  2l12 and  4b12
E. recognizing distinction made by majority
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.