unwarranted sentencing disparities, yet it failed to address the issue. Lente, 647 F.3d at 1034 (emphasis added). On appeal, we held the defendant’s sentencing-disparity argument was material and non-frivolous and thus the court’s failure to expressly address it was procedural error. Id. at 1035. As, here, Defendant did not raise sentencing disparity before the district court at all, we find Gantt more apropos. In Gantt, we upheld an upward variance to 20 years imprisonment from the Guideline sentence of seven years. Id. In doing so, we rejected the defendant’s argument that the court failed to address sentencing disparity. Id. Instead, we reiterated that the district court need not expressly discuss each of the § 3553(a) factors. Id. at 1249; see also Sanchez-Juarez, 446 F.3d at 1116 (<HOLDING>). Further, we stated, “one can say as a general
holding a sentencing court is not obligated to expressly weigh on the record each of the factors set out in  3553a 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 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 many of the  3553a factors are already incorporated into any guidelines determination and the  3553a factors can themselves overlap holding that sentence is reasonable when the district court properly addresses sentencing factors of  3553a