Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).” United States v. Friedman, 554 F.3d 1301, 1307 (10th Cir.2009). Our review of the reasonableness of Defendant’s sentence is conducted under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. See United States v. Zapata, 546 F.3d 1179, 1192 (10th Cir.2008). The district court sentenced Defendant to 121 months’ imprisonment — the low end of the suggested Guidelines range. Because the district court selected a with in-Guidelines sentence, its ruling is due a presumption of substantive reasonableness on appeal. See United States v. Algarate-Valeneia, 550 F.3d 1238, 1245 n. 6 (10th Cir.2008). Our review of the record has failed to uncover any evidence that brings this presumption of reasonableness into question. See United States v. Donohoe, 458 F.2d 237, 239 (10th Cir.1972) (<HOLDING>). AFFIRMED. ** This order and judgment is not 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing the range of discretion of the trial judge (B) holding that trial justice has wide discretion to determine relevancy of evidence (C) recognizing that the trial judge must be given a wide range of discretion in determining whether a mistrial should be declared (D) recognizing that wide discretion in imposition of sentence reposes in the trial judge (E) holding that trial court has wide discretion in determining sufficiency of foundation for opinion testimony
Output (English): holding that trial court has wide discretion in determining sufficiency of foundation for opinion testimony