explanation of the sentence was not plain error. United States v. Bonilla, 524 F.3d 647, 657 (5th Cir.2008)(“In this case, examining the district court’s statement at sentencing in the context of the full sentencing hearing confirms that the court’s reasons for the non-guideline sentence it imposed were minimally sufficient.”). McGrew also disagrees with the sentencing court’s refusal to give him a more lenient sentence on account of his being a drug addict, a “characteristic” under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1). His mere disagreement with the court’s assessment of the § 3553(a) factors does not establish that the sentence was an abuse of discretion or unreasonable, much less that it was plainly erroneous. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, this court has routinely affirmed
holding that nothing in booker or elsewhere requires the district court 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 while our reasonableness review may take into consideration the extent of the district courts deviation from the guidelines range we must give due deference to the district courts decision that the  3553a factors on a whole justify the extent of the variance holding that a reviewing court must give due deference to the district courts decision that the  3553a factors on a whole justify the extent of the variance above the guideline range holding that consideration by a sentencing court of acquitted conduct was appropriate in establishing the applicable guideline range or in determining the sentence to impose within the guideline range 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