Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
punctuation omitted). We presume that a sentence within the Guidelines range is reasonable. Id. This presumption, however, may be rebutted by reference to the statutory sentencing factors found in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Id. Price, however, did not receive a Guidelines sentence but a sentence varying below her Guidelines range by twelve months. The only evidence that Price offers in support of her argument that her below-Guidelines sentence is unreasonable is her past history of family problems. The district court considered this evidence but found that it was not sufficiently compelling to warrant a greater variance, and we conclude that the district court acted within its discretion in determining the extent of the variance. See United States v. Austad, 519 F.3d 431, 434 (8th Cir.2008)  (quoting Gall v. United States, — U.S. —, 128
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing that while our reasonableness review may take into consideration the extent of the district courts deviation from the guidelines range we must give due deference to the district courts decision that the  3553a factors on a whole justify the extent of the variance
B. holding that a reviewing court must give due deference to the district courts decision that the  3553a factors on a whole justify the extent of the variance above the guideline range
C. holding that we may apply a presumption of reasonableness to a sentence within the guidelines range
D. holding that there must be sufficient evidence in the record to affirmatively demonstrate the courts consideration of the relevant section 3553a factors
E. holding that we review factual findings underlying a decision to apply a sentencing enhancement for clear error and give due deference to the district courts application of the guidelines to the facts
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.