Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
to report as requested to the probation officer and failure to notify the probation of any change in his residence. Oh appeal, Angelo-Guarino argues that upwardly variant sentence is unreasonable because the district court based the sentence on improper considerations and unfounded speculation. After thorough review, we affirm. We review the sentence imposed upon the revocation of supervised release for reasonableness. United States v. Sweeting, 437 F.3d 1105, 1106-07 (11th Cir. 2006). “[R]easonableness” review “merely asks whether the trial court abused its discretion.” United States v. Pugh, 515 F.3d 1179, 1189 (11th Cir.2008) (quoting Rita v. United States, — U.S.-, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2465, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007)); see also United States v. Silva, 443 F.3d 795, 798 (11th Cir.2006) . We review de novo whether a factor considered
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding apprendi is not implicated by an application of the sentencing guidelines that increases the sentencing range so long as the sentence imposed does not exceed the statutory maximum
B. holding that despite the advisory nature of the sentencing guidelines they remain the starting point and the initial benchmark of a district courts sentencing analysis the district court should begin all sentencing proceedings by correctly calculating the applicable guidelines range and keep that range in mind throughout the sentencing process and that failing to calculate or improperly calculating the guidelines range  or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentenceemdashincluding an explanation for any deviation from the guidelines range constitutes significant procedural error 
C. holding that retroactive application of advisory sentencing guidelines violated ex post facto clause because guidelines increased minimum sentencing range
D. holding that district courts decision to exceed the advisory sentencing range in chapter 7 of the sentencing guidelines ussg  7b14 is reviewed for an abuse of discretion
E. holding that retroactive application of advisory sentencing guidelines violated ex post facto clause because guidelines created sufficient risk of increased sentencing range
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.