Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
in seeking a lower sentence, the record must both reflect both that the district judge considered the defendant’s argument and that the judge explained the basis for rejecting it.” United States v. Vonner, 452 F.3d 560, 567 (6th Cir.2006); United States v. Richardson, 437 F.3d 550, 554 (6th Cir.2006). This Court will only uphold a sentence if it is reasonable. Reasonableness contains two facets: substantive and procedural. See United States v. Webb, 403 F.3d 373, 383 (6th Cir.2005); United States v. Jones, 445 F.3d 865 (6th Cir.2006) (Moore, J., dissenting on the ground that the majority opinion conflicted with prior Circuit precedent). In reviewing for reasonableness, this Court employs a presumption of substantive reasonableness. United States v. Williams, 436 F.3d 706, 708 (2006) . That is, this Court presumes that the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding a court of appeals may apply a presumption of reasonableness to a district court sentence that reflects a proper application of the sentencing guidelines
B. holding presumption of reasonableness exists but still noting that a district court must consider the  3553 factors
C. holding that a court of appeals may apply a presumption of reasonableness to a district court sentence that reflects a proper application of the sentencing guidelines
D. recognizing a presumption of reasonableness
E. 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
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.