OPINION
Ronald Carstarphen appeals the sentence that was imposed following his guilty plea arguing that it was unreasonable. For the reasons that follow, we will affirm the sentence.
I.
In as much as we write primarily for the parties, it is not necessary to recite the facts of this case.1 Carstarphen’s challenge to his sentence relies on United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005).
*155Carstarphen acknowledges that the district court appeared to comply with the methodology for imposing sentences after Booker that we prescribed in United States v. Gunter, 462 F.3d 237 (3d Cir.2006). Appellant’s Br. at 12-13. We agree. The court significantly reduced the sentence suggested by the advisory guideline range based upon the defendant’s cooperation and the government’s “5K1” motion. In imposing sentence the court explained that it was concerned with the defendant’s criminal history “from the time [he was] very young just showing no consideration to what the law requires.”2 However, the court went beyond the mere numbers and appropriately considered his age at the time of his prior offenses. The court was also clearly concerned with the callous nature of the offense of conviction and the psychological trauma his actions inflicted on his victim.
The resulting sentence includes a 50% reduction for his cooperation, yet is still sufficiently incapacitive to address the need to protect the public and underscore the seriousness of this offense. It is thus clear from the sentence as well as the court’s explanation at sentencing that the court properly considered the factors contained in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and Carstarphen does not argue to the contrary except to argue that the resulting sentence was “unreasonable.” The record is to the contrary.
Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of sentence.