Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
makes, particularly when those arguments are raised only in passing.” United States v. Madden, 515 F.3d 601, 611 (6th Cir.2008). In his sentencing position paper, Escalon-Velasquez did not argue that a within-Guidelines sentence would waste government resources. His counsel raised the issue only at the end of his presentation, stating cursorily that “the resources that we would expend in incarcerating him any longer than necessary for him to be — for him to be deported should also be taken into consideration.” (Sentencing Hr’g Tr. 14.) We therefore conclude that the argument was raised “only in passing,” and the court was not required to address explicitly this mitigating argument to satisfy the constitutional requirement of procedural reasonableness. Cf. Madden, 515 F.3d at 611-12 . Escalon-Velasquez’s second critique— that the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that reviewing court first ensures that district court committed no significant procedural error then considers substantive reasonableness of sentence describing factors demonstrating procedural error
B. holding that a party cannot preserve an argument if it presents only a skeletal or undeveloped argument to the trial court
C. holding that a reviewing court must first ensure that the district court committed no significant procedural error
D. holding sentencing court did not commit procedural error when record showed court had psr heard oral argument from both parties and was aware of section 3553a factors
E. holding that the district court did not commit a  significant procedural error  by not explicitly addressing an undeveloped mitigating argument quoting gall 552 us at 50 128 sct 586
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.