Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the district court record indicate not only that the district court considered the defendant’s argument but it must also explain why the district court decided to reject that argument. We do not require district courts to be automatons in their discussion of the Section 3553(a) factors. Rather, the focus is on substance rather than form and no “ritual incantation” of the factors is required. Instead, the record must simply be sufficiently clear to allow us to be assured that the district court considered all the arguments before it and to understand how those arguments factored into the district court’s ultimate sentencing determination. This is required even where the district court’s sentence of a defendant is presumptively reasonable under Williams. See e.g., Moms, 448 F.3d at 931 . Applying our past jurisprudence to this case,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding presumption of reasonableness exists but still noting that a district court must consider the  3553 factors
B. holding that the rebuttable presumption of reasonableness does not relieve the district court of the obligation to consider other relevant statutory factors or sufficiently articulate its reasoning so as to permit reasonable appellate review
C. holding that any sentence that is properly calculated under the guidelines is entitled to a rebuttable presumption of reasonableness
D. recognizing a presumption of reasonableness
E. holding that guidelines create a rebuttable presumption
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.