Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Bravo, 203 F.3d at 780. The court, however, failed to analyze the § 3553(a) factors when it denied Frazier’s motion, and summarily held that “the factors in § 3553(a) weigh strongly against any reduction in Frazier’s 360 month sentence.” While it is true that the district court was not required to discuss each of the § 3553(a) factors individually, see Eggersdorf, 126 F.3d at 1322, it was required to provide some explanation as to why it denied Frazier’s § 3582(c)(2) motion. See U.S. v. Scott, 426 F.3d 1324, 1329-30 (11th Cir.2005) (finding the district court adequately addressed the § 3553(a) factors when it considered “ ‘all the obvious things that you would normally take in consideration,’ particularly, ‘the age of the child.’ ”); U.S. v. Vautier, 144 F.3d 756, 761 (11th Cir.1998) ; U.S. v. Smith, 568 F.3d 923, 928 (11th
```
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. 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
C. holding that district court adequately considered the  3553a factors when it cited defendants demonstrated violence and  all the other considerations that went in to the establishment of this defendants sentence 
D. 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
E. holding that plain error review is used for unpreserved challenges to the method by which the district court arrived at a sentence including arguments that the sentencing court failed to explain adequately the sentence imposed under the statutory factors in  3553a
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.