Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the need for “rehabilitation.” Appellant’s Br. at 7. Because “ ‘reasonableness’ is inherently a concept of flexible meaning,” United States v. Crosby, 397 F.3d at 115, district courts necessarily enjoy broad discretion in imposing sentences within a statutory range. “Although the brevity or length of a sentence can exceed the bounds of ‘reasonableness,’ we anticipate encountering such circumstances infrequently.” United States v. Fleming, 397 F.3d at 100. This is not such a rare case. Bethea’s sentence represented the bottom of the applicable Guidelines sentencing range determined by reference to an offense level of 34 and a criminal history category of VI. Contrary to Bethea’s assertions, the district judge explicitly considered the issue of rehabilitation. See Sentencing Tr. at 13 . Noting Bethea’s eleven prior convictions, the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that sentence is reasonable when the district court properly addresses sentencing factors of  3553a
B. recognizing that  3553a requires the sentencing court to consider educational and other correctional treatments
C. 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
D. holding that nothing in booker or elsewhere requires the district court to state on the record that it has explicitly considered each of the  3553a factors or to discuss each of the  3553a factors
E. holding that the district court is not required to state on the record that it has explicitly considered each of the  3553a factors or to discuss each of the  3553a factors
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.