Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): from the Guidelines range. Gall, 128 S.Ct. at 597; see also 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c) (requiring the sentencing court to state its reasons for imposing a sentence outside of the Guidelines). As indicated above, Mr. Johnson argues that his sentence is proeedurally unreasonable because: (1) the probation officer’s extrapolation was flawed and should not have been considered in determining the sentence; (2) he did not receive notice of the probation officer’s extrapolation memorandum ; and (3) the district judge did not adequately explain his reasons for imposing the 8 year sentence. However, it is undisputed that Mr. Johnson never raised these arguments in the district court. Therefore, we review them for plain error. See United States v. Romero, 491 F.3d 1173, 1176-77 (10th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Atencio, 476 F.3d 1099, 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that we review the sentence imposed by a district court under the abuse of discretion standard (B) holding that plain error review is used for unpreserved challenges to the method by which the district court arrived at a sentence including arguments that the sentencing court failed to explain adequately the sentence imposed under the statutory factors in  3553a (C) holding that a sentence imposed for a violation of supervised release will be upheld where 1 the district court considered the applicable policy statements 2 the sentence is within the statutory maximum and 3 the sentence is reasonable (D) holding statutory error harmless where district court imposed the highest available sentence under guidelines range and considered sentencing to the statutory maximum (E) holding that sentence is reasonable when the district court properly addresses sentencing factors of  3553a
Output (English): holding statutory error harmless where district court imposed the highest available sentence under guidelines range and considered sentencing to the statutory maximum