906, 912 (9th Cir.2006) (“Judges need not rehearse on the record all of the considerations that 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) lists; it is enough to calculate the range accurately and explain why (if the sentence lies outside it) this defendant deserves more or less.”) (citation omitted). The district court’s approach reflected an understanding that the Guidelines are a “starting point.” See United States v. Espinoza-Cano, 456 F.3d 1126, 1128 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). The sentence was reasonable in light of Ascencio’s extensive criminal history and the circumstances surrounding the present offense, including that he was carrying a large quantity of methamphetamine, a large amount of cash, as well as a gun. See United States v. Rodriguez-Rodriguez, 441 F.3d 767, 770-71 (9th Cir. 2006) (<HOLDING>). AFFIRMED. 1 . The district court adequately
holding that the trial judge may consider the crackpowder cocaine disparity in determining whether in the particular case a withinguidelines sentence is greater than necessary to serve the objectives of sentencing holding that the courts statement that the sentence was sufficient and a greater sentence is not necessary did not contradict the requirements of  3553a recognizing as reasonable a sentence that is sufficient but no greater than necessary to comport with the goals of  3553a2 holding that the complaint on appeal must comport with the trial objection holding objection to expert report made in trial court must comport with complaint asserted on appeal