Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): the defendant’s guideline range. See United States v. Williams, 526 F.3d 1312, 1323-24 (11th Cir.2008) (as part of history and characteristics of the defendant, district court could consider defendant’s prior offenses in deciding to impose an upward variance, even though those offenses were already included in the defendant’s criminal history score); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3661 (“No limitation shall be placed on the information concerning the background, character, and conduct of a person convicted of an offense which a court of the United States may receive and sidered the 3553(a) factors, “considered the parties’ arguments and ha[d] a reasoned basis for exercising [its] own legal decisionmaking authority.” Rita, 551 U.S. at 356, 127 S.Ct. at 2468; see also Talley, 431 F.3d at 786 (<HOLDING>). Regarding Cooper’s argument that the court 
 Holding statements: (A) 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 (B) holding that there must be sufficient evidence in the record to affirmatively demonstrate the courts consideration of the relevant section 3553a factors (C) 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 (D) recognizing that many of the  3553a factors are already incorporated into any guidelines determination and the  3553a factors can themselves overlap (E) holding that it is sufficient for a court to acknowledge its consideration of the parties arguments and the 3553a factors
Output (English): 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