statements contained in Chapter Seven of the Sentencing Guidelines and the applicable § 3553(a) factors, Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440, and has adequately explained the sentence chosen, though it need not explain the sentence in as much detail as when imposing the original sentence. Thompson, 595 F.3d at 547. A sentence is substantively reasonable if the district court states a proper basis for its imposition of a sentence up to the statutory maximum. Crudup, 461 F.3d at 440. We find that Lott’s thirty-seven-month sentence is reasonable. A review of the record confirms that the district court considered the advisory policy statement range and the applicable § 3553(a) factors, and stated a proper basis for the sentence imposed. See United States v. Rivera-Santana, 668 F.3d 95, 105 (4th Cir.) (<HOLDING>) (citation omitted), cert. denied, - U.S. -,
holding that sentence is reasonable when the district court properly addresses sentencing factors of  3553a recognizing that many of the  3553a factors are already incorporated into any guidelines determination and the  3553a factors can themselves overlap holding that it is sufficient for a court to acknowledge its consideration of the parties arguments and the 3553a factors 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 recognizing that the court will credit an articulation of the  3553a factors as clear and appropriate when the reasons given by the district court can be matched to a factor appropriate for consideration and tailored to the defendants situation