in prison. The court thus found it necessary to protect society from Martinez for the longest time period possible. The court ruled that a life sentence was necessary to deter others engaged in gang activity, and that Martinez’s rehabilitative needs would not be better served by a lesser sentence. The court therefore concluded that it would have imposed the same sentence had it known the guidelines were advisory rather than mandatory. We have held that a properly calculated guidelines sentence is entitled to a rebuttable presumption of reasonableness. United States v. Mykytiuk, 415 F.3d 606, 608 (7th Cir.2005). The district court has given a very thorough analysis of the section 3553(a) factors in support of that sentence. See United States v. Dean, 414 F.3d 725, 729 (7th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). Under the law of this circuit, that would be
holding that a sentencing judge would commit a statutory error  if the judge failed to consider the applicable guidelines range  as well as the other factors listed in section 3553a holding that sentence is reasonable when the district court properly addresses sentencing factors of  3553a recognizing that the weight to be afforded any given argument made pursuant to one of the section 3553a factors is a matter firmly committed to the discretion of the sentencing judge holding that the sentencing judge need only provide an adequate statement of the judges reasoning consistent with section 3553a for thinking that the sentence selected is indeed appropriate for the particular defendant holding that the courts statement that the sentence was sufficient and a greater sentence is not necessary did not contradict the requirements of  3553a