Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): and internal quotation marks omitted); see also United States v. Messina, 806 F.3d 55, 66 (2d Cir. 2015) (discussing “broad range of permissible decisions available to the district court”). Kalume’s 14-month sentence was at the high end of her 8-14 month Sentencing Guidelines range. “[I]n the overwhelming majority of cases, a Guidelines sentence will fall comfortably within the broad range of sentences that would be reasonable in the particular circumstances.” United States v. Fernandez, 443 F.3d 19, 27 (2d Cir. 2006). This case presents no exception. The district court was entitled to rely on Kalume’s lack of remorse, a factor informing her Guidelines range, to explain its decision as to where to sentence within that range. See United States v. Jacobson, 15 F.3d 19, 23 (2d Cir. 1994) (<HOLDING>); accord United States v. Broxmeyer, 699 F.3d 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that lack of justiciable interest resulted in lack of standing to pursue claim and that lack of standing deprived the trial court of jurisdiction to act (B) recognizing lack of remorse as factor that can inform sentence (C) recognizing generally if the ultimate sentence is reasonable and the sentencing judge did not commit procedural error in imposing that sentence we will not second guess the weight or lack thereof that the judge accorded to a given factor or to a specific argument made pursuant to that factor internal quotation marks and alteration omitted (D) recognizing temporal proximity as important factor (E) holding that evidence that defendant robbed the victim after killing him showed a lack of remorse
Output (English): recognizing temporal proximity as important factor