Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): whereby we consider such factors as whether the district court properly (a) identified the Guidelines range supported by the facts found by the court, (b) treated the Guidelines as advisory, and (c) considered the Guidelines together with the other factors outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); and (2) substantive reasonableness, whereby we consider whether the length of the sentence is reasonable in light of the factors outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). United States v. Crosby, 397 F.3d at 114-15. To the extent Watson appears to contend that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the district court persisted in calculating his Guidelines by reference to drug quantities not found proved beyond a reasonable doubt by the jury, his argument is foreclosed by Crosby. See id. at 115 (<HOLDING>). Similarly without merit is Watson’s argument 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a sentencing judge would violate section 3553a by limiting consideration of the applicable guidelines range to the facts found by the jury or admitted by the defendant instead of considering the applicable guidelines range as required by subsection 3553a4 based on the facts found by the court (B) holding that judge found sentence enhancements mandatorily imposed under the guidelines that result in a sentence greater than that authorized by the jury verdict or facts admitted by the defendant violate the sixth amendments guarantee of the right to trial by jury (C) 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 (D) holding that consideration by a sentencing court of acquitted conduct was appropriate in establishing the applicable guideline range or in determining the sentence to impose within the guideline range (E) holding that despite the advisory nature of the sentencing guidelines they remain the starting point and the initial benchmark of a district courts sentencing analysis the district court should begin all sentencing proceedings by correctly calculating the applicable guidelines range and keep that range in mind throughout the sentencing process and that failing to calculate or improperly calculating the guidelines range  or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentenceemdashincluding an explanation for any deviation from the guidelines range constitutes significant procedural error 
Output (English): holding that judge found sentence enhancements mandatorily imposed under the guidelines that result in a sentence greater than that authorized by the jury verdict or facts admitted by the defendant violate the sixth amendments guarantee of the right to trial by jury