Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Alvarez-Bernabe, 626 F.3d 1161, 1165-66 (10th Cir.2010); see also United States v. Torres-Duenas, 461 F.3d 1178, 1180-83 (10th Cir.2006) (upholding a 41-month sentence for illegal reentry based in part on a 16-level enhancement for a prior conviction). Based on this precedent, the district court could reasonably rely on the 16-level enhancement to arrive at an appropriate sentence. Mr. Soto-Robledo relies not only on the alleged unfairness of the 16-level enhancement, but also on the alleged failure to adequately consider mitigating factors. According to Mr. Soto-Robledo, these factors deserved greater weight. But the district court has the discretion to balance mitigating factors, such as cultural assimilation. See United States v. Galarza-Payan, 441 F.3d 885, 889-90 (10th Cir.2006) ; see also Alvarez-Bernabe, 626 F.3d at 1167
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a court of appeals may afford a presumption of reasonableness to a withinguidelines sentence
B. holding that we may apply a presumption of reasonableness to a sentence within the guidelines range
C. holding that sentence within guidelines range enjoys a presumption of reasonableness
D. holding that a 57month sentence for illegal reentry was substantively reasonable rejecting the defendants effort to rebut the presumption of reasonableness based on evidence of cultural assimilation
E. recognizing a presumption of reasonableness
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.