T h e H on or abl e Ri ch ar d M i l l s , U n i t ed St at es D i s t r i ct J u dg e f or t h e Cen t r al D i s t r i ct of I l l i n oi s , s i t t i n g by * d esi gnat i o n. NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 07a0765n.06 F iled: October 29, 2007 Case No. 06- 1114 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT UNITED STAT ES O F AMERICA, P laintif f-App ellee,

v. THOM AS D . TE EP LE, Defendan t-Appellant.

_______________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P EA L F RO M THE UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE WE STE RN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

BEFORE: BATCHELDER and MOORE, Circuit Judges; MILLS , District Judge. * ALICE M. BATCHEL DER, Circ uit Jud ge. De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla nt T ho mas D. Te e ple

a pp e a ls the 96 month s e nte nce im po se d b y the dis tr ic t c ourt

fo llo wi ngTe e ple ’s g uil ty ple a to voluntary manslaug hter in the death of J ason Ly ons. The district c ourt imposed a non-Guide lines sentenc e that is 39 months longer than the advisory

Guidelines maxim um. Teeple argues that the dis tr ic t c ourt

e rr e d in imp os ingthe se nte nc e be c a us e it i s b oth pro ced

ur a lly and su bs tanti ve ly

unrea sonable. B eca

use the district cour

t i m p o s ed a sente nce suf ficient, but not g reater than

nece ssary , which is pro ce d u ra l l y an d s u b s t an t i v el y

re as o n ab l e, we af

fi rm th e d i s tri ct co urt’s sentenc e. I. BACKG ROUND2

On September

10, 2004, Tee ple, his wife, Jordana Te ep l e, and Da n Be nnett, a fr iend, attended a

party on the B ay

Mills I ndian Reser

vation, Michig an , af

t er visit ing a

bar. Ma ny of the partyg oers ha d been dr inking quite a bit a nd sever al arguments and fig hts br oke out. Tee ple admitted that he consume d 4-5 bee rs that eve ning. Tee ple’s friend, Dan Be nnett, beg an ar g uing w ith severa l

wo me n at th e pa

rt y , wh e re up on L y on s ste pp e d into t he argume nt a

nd punc he d B e nn e tt twi c e . T he se

same wo me n the n be g an ar g uin g wi th Te e ple

. Witn e sse s at the pa rt y sa id t hat T e e ple str

uc k at le a st tw o o f t he wo me n, but Tee ple de nie d this . In a ny e ve nt, Ly on s o nc e mor e int e rj e c te d h ims e lf int o the fra y and beg an to a

rgue with T eeple . Tee ple asser ted that one of

the women pulled out a knif e, and Te eple, in re sponse, pulled out his own knife. A t t h i s p o i n t , L yo n s t h r e w h i s b e e r a t T e e p l e an d th e t w o m e nb e g anf i g h t i n g . U l t i m a t e l y, L y ons fell bac kwar ds and collapsed to the g round, havingbeen sta bbed by Tee ple three times: twice in the chest wi t h o n e wound pier cingthe left lungand the other penetr ating the hea

rt (the f atal wound) and once in the l eft thi g h. The Government allege d that one witness overhe ard Te eple sa y “This is for Da

n.” Tee ple and his wife then fled. O ne witness stated that as h e left, Tee ple threatened the witness with a knife. O ffice rs nea rby hear d scre ams from witnesse s and quickly arr ived at the sc ene. They attempted to stop Tee ple as he drove awa y with his wife, but Teeple ig nored the ir order s to stop until he was conf

ronted with a police car approa ching from the opposit e dire ction. Tee ple was the n

arr ested. The office rs sea rche d the ar ea about 300-400 y ards awa y from the pa

rty and re cover ed the kn if e Te e ple ha d u se d to sta

b Ly on s. The Gove rnment cha

rg ed Te eple with second de g ree murder in the de ath of Ly ons, but subsequently

amende d the cha

rg e to voluntary

manslaug hter, a

vi o l at i on of 18 U.S.C. § 1112.3

Tee ple pleade d g uilty

to voluntary

manslaug hter on July

15, 2005. On Dec ember

19, 2005, the district court held a sentenc ing he aring . At the hea ring , the dis tr ic t c ourt

re lie d on th e pr e -s e nte nc e inv e sti g a tio n r e po rt (“ PSR” ) t o d e te rm ine Te e ple ’s ba se offe nse leve l of 22 with a criminal history cate g ory of I I , which plac ed him in a Guidelines ra ng e of 46 to 5 7 mo nth s’ imp ri so nme nt (und e r the 20 03 Gu ide lin e s)

. B oth pa rt ie s’ ob je c tio ns to t

he PSR

wer e re solved prior to its being finalized, and neither party objected to the c ourt’s adoption of the PSR . Tee ple ar g ued for

a sente nce a

t the low-end of t h e Gui delines ra ng e, 46 months, while the Gover nment argued for a sentence outside the Guidelines rang e—in fa ct, the Gove rnment soug ht the statutory maxi mum of 10 y ear s (120 months). At se nte nc ing , the Go ve rnme nt a lle g e d th a t T e e ple ha d p ull e d h is k nif e out e arl ie r t

hat sa me eveningin the parkinglot of a bar. During the cross-examination of a psy cholog ist called by Tee ple, the Gover nment elicited testimony

that Tee ple had told the psy cholog ist that (1) Tee ple, his wife a nd Dan B ennett we re in Te eple’ s car in a night club parking lot, ( 2) that Be nnett y elled out the window

a t so me pe op le wa lki ng in t he str e e t, a

nd (3 ) t hat T e e ple too k th e kn if

e out of the g lov e bo x of h is

car and put it into his pocket be cause he thoug ht he nee ded to protec t himself. Upon hea ring testimony

from Te eple’ s psy cholog ist and Teeple himse lf, as we ll as testimony from sever al of L y ons’s family members, the court considere d both the Guidelines rang e and the § 3553(a) fac tors befor e imposing Te eple’ s sentence
. I t is true that th e d ef

en d an t did pull that knife out of the g love box earlier in the evening . I t also is true that he tried to—a n d did . . . throw the knife a way afte r the s t ab b i n g.

. . . . I t does look like the defe ndant may have be en trying to aveng e the be ating that Dan4

Be nnett had re ceive d. And, of c ourse, i t h as t o b e said here that . . . Mr. L y ons himself was involved in this. He was not an a ng el in this event here . Imean, we do know that he punc hed out Mr. B ennett. He probably was drinking , as well. And at s o me p o int,
. . . Ith ink

h e thr e w b e e r

a t [ T e e p le ]. Co n c e r n i n g T e e p l e h i m s e l f

, t h e c o urt c o n s i d e r e d T e e p l e ’ s “ l e n g th y j u v e n i l e r e c or d, six conviction s , as we ll as a burg lary conviction as a

n adult, with a violation of probation on that char g e.” D espite the psycholog ist’s opinion t hat Tee ple’s risk of r ecidivism i s l o w, t he cour t conclude d that it must consider the public and “t h e need to protec t the public from fur ther c rimes of the de fenda

nt.” The court acknow ledg ed that there “wa s a time pe riod of about thre e or f our y ear s the r e w h e r e [T e e p le ] d id

n o t a p p ar e n tl y e n g a g e in

c r im in a l a c ti v it

y , b u t h e s ur e d id

in th is c ase.” “And I kind of view this as a continuation of his ac tivity —his criminal activity

—a continuation of the patter n of criminal activity , althoug h admittedly a differe nt form of c riminal activity than what he had done previously .” “Another consideration is, of course, the de fenda nt admittedly

does have a substance abuse pr oblem, and unless he g ets control of this, he will continue to be in trouble i n one fo rm or ano the r . . . . I

thi nk th e defe nd ant d oe s n e e d p le nty of tim e to r e c e ive su

bs tanc e a bu se treatment.” As to the nature and cir cumstance s of the off ense, the court noted the trag i c n at u re of the situation for all involved, including Tee ple, and note d t h at Tee ple “did take the life of a person whom he re ally

did not know and who wa s not armed. A nd while . . . he ha s pled to voluntary manslaug hter, the c ircumstance s of how this happene d sho w t h at t he def endant wa s capa

ble of formingsome deg ree of intent at the time that this oc curr ed.” “[T] here has to be a rec og nition here of the ser iousness of the off ense. Y ou can’ t ge t more ser ious than killi ng somebody , obviously .” The c ourt conc luded that in light of the § 3553(a) fac tors it had discussed, a non- Guidelines5

senten c e w a s w ar

r an te d

. T h e d is tr ic t c o urt s e n te n c e d T e e p le to 9 6 mo n th s ’ im p r is o n me nt, a 39 month upwa

rd varia nce from the top of the Guidelines rang e. Tee ple did not object to his sentence , but f ile d a tim e ly no tic e of a pp e a l. II. STA TEM EN T OF JU RI SDI CT ION The district cour

t had jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231 because Tee ple was c harg ed with offense s ag ainst the laws of the United S tates. W e have jurisdiction over the a ppeal unde r 28 U.S.C. § 1291. III . A NA LY SIS When sentencinga def

endant, the district c ourt must impos e “‘a sentence suf ficient, but not g reater than ne cessa

ry , t o co m p l y wi th the purposes’” of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)( 2), United States v. Foreman , 4 36 F .3 d 6 38 , 6 44 n. 1 ( 6th Cir . 2 00 6) (q

uo tin g 18 U. S.C. § 355 3( a )) , an d on ap pe a l, t his Court must revie w t he dis trict court’s se ntence for r easona bleness. See U

nited States v. Booke r , 543 U.S . 220 , 2 61 (2 00 5) ; Un ite d S tates v . Lo nn ie Da v is , 4 5 8 F

. 3 d 5 0 5 , 5 1 0 ( 6 th

Ci r . 2 0 0 6) (“Rea sonablene ss is the ap pe lla te stand ar d of re view in judg ing whether a district cour

t has

acc omplished its t ask.”) (citation omitted). A. P r oc e dur al R e as ona ble ne ss “We revie w [Teeple’s proce dural unrea sonablene ss] claim for pla in error beca use [Teeple] failed to objec t to the district c ourt’s § 3553 analy sis at the sentenc ing hear ing, de spite the fac t that the di strict court provided [Teeple] with the opportuni ty to object.” Un ite d S

tates v . B lac k

we ll , 459 F .3 d 73 9, 77 3- 74 (6 th C ir . 2 00 6) ; see also United States v . Harden , 195 F. App’ x 382, 385 (6th Cir. 2006) (a pply ing pla in error

revie w to d e f

e n d a nt’ s p r o c e d

u r a l u nr e a s o n a b le n e s s c laim when def

endant fa ile d to ob

je c t to pr oc e du

ra l in a de qu a c ie s at se nte nc ing ). “ To e sta bli shpla in e rr or , [T e e ple ] mus t6

show (1) that a

n err or occur

red in the district c ourt; (2) that the err or was plain, i.e., obvious or clea r; (3 ) t hat th e e rror affect e d [T e e ple ’s ] sub sta nti a l r ig hts ; a

nd (4 ) t hat th is a dv e rs e imp a c t se ri ou sly aff ecte d the fa irness, integ rity or public re putat i o n o f t he judicial proc eeding s.” United States v. Abboud , 438 F.3d 554, 583 ( 6th Cir. 2006) (citation and inter nal punctuation omitted). “A se ntence may

be proc edura lly

unrea sonable if ‘ the district judge fails to “conside r” the applicable Guidelines ra

ng e or ne g lects to “c onsider” the other factors lis ted i n 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) , and instead sim p l y

selec ts what the judg e dee ms an appropr iate sente nce w ithout such require d consideration.’” U

n ite d S ta te s v. Fe rguson , 456 F.3d 660, 664 ( 6th Cir. 2006) (quoting United States v. W

ebb , 403 F.3d 373, 383 ( 6th Cir. 2005 ))

. W h i l e this Court has consistently require d dis tr ic t c ourt s to c on side r § 35 53 (a ) f a c tor s, pr oc e dura l r e a so na ble ne ss “ do e s n ot r e qu ir e a ro te listi ng ,” United States v. Collington , 461 F.3d 805, 809 (6th Cir. 2006) , or a “‘ ritual incantation’ of the fa ctors,” United States v. W illiams , 4 3 6 F. 3 d 7 0 6 , 7 0 9 (6 th C i r. 2 0 0 6 ) ( qu o t i n g United States v. Johnson , 4 03 F .3 d 8 13 , 8 16 (6 th C ir . 2 00 5) ), so lon g a s the c ourt pr ov ide s “ su ff ic ie nt e vid e nc e in the re cord to a ffirmatively demonstrate [its] consideration of [t he fa ctors],” United St a t es v. McBride , 4 3 4 F .3 d 4 70 , 4 76 n. 3 ( 6th Cir . 2 00 6) (c itatio n o mitte d) , “ ‘t o a llo w f or re a so na ble a pp e llate revie w.’” W

illiams , 4 3 6 F. 3 d

at 7 0 9 (q u o t i n g United States v. Kirby , 418 F.3d 621 , 6 2 6 (6 t h C i r. 2005)). “The sentenc ing judg e shoul d s et fo rt h enoug h to satisfy the appe llate cour

t that he has considere d the par

ties’ ar g uments and has a rea soned basis for ex er ci sing his own leg al decisionmakingauthority .” Rita v. United States , 127 S. Ct . 2456, 2468 (2007). More over, [ w] h er e t h e d ef

en d an to r p ro s ec u t o r p re s en t s n o n fr i v o l o u s re as o n s fo r i mp o s i n g a differ ent sentenc e, howeve r, the judge will nor mally g o further

and explain why

he has re jected those arguments. Sometim es the c ircumstance s will call for a brief7

ex p l an at i o n ; s o m et i m es t h ey wi l l ca l l fo r a l en gth i er ex p l an at i o n . W h er e t h e j u d ge imposes a sentenc e outside the Guidelines, the judge will e x plain why he has done so. Id

. Her e, the district cour t expressly

adopted the PSR and the Guidelines r e c o mm e n d a ti o n a s p a rt of the re cord ( § 3553(a) (4)) . I t also expressly addre ssed (1) the nature and cir cum s t ances of the offe nse (§ 3553( a)( 1)); (2) Tee ple’s history and char acte ristics (§ 3553(a )(1) ); (3) the seriousness of the offense (§ 3553(a) (2)( A)); (4) t he need t o protec t the publ ic from Te eple ( § 3553(a) (2)( C)); (5) the nee d to provide Tee ple with neede d medical care /corre ctional treatment to combat his substance abuse (§ 3553(a) (2)( D)); and (6) the need to pr ovide restitution to Ly ons’s fami l y an dt h e India

n

rese rvation (§ 3553( a)( 7)). Whil e not e x amining ever y § 3553(a) fac tor, the district court pr ovided sufficie nt evidence in the rec ord to aff irmatively

demonstrate its co nsideration of the § 3553(a) fa c tor s. Te e ple arg

ue s that the dis tr ic t c ourt

re a c he d a

pr oc e dura lly

unre a so na

ble se nte nc e be c a

us e it disreg arde d or ig nored mitig ating in fo rm at i o n T eeple submitt ed to the cour t (in the form of Te e ple ’s se nte nc ingme mor and um, a DV D atta c he d to the me mo, and the te sti mony of his ps y c ho log ist )— a ll o f whic h s po ke to Te e ple ’s low ri sk of re c idi vis m. Th e re c or d, ho we ve r, re fl e c ts that the district court c onsidered a nd addre ssed explicitl y

Tee ple’s ar g uments for a lower se ntence

and e xpla ine d th a t it

wo uld no t g ive a

g re a t de a l of w e ig ht t o th e ps y c ho log ist ’s te sti mony be c a us e the psy cholog ist did not appea r to have a full picture of Tee ple’s cr im i n al re co rd o r hi story of

su bs tanc e a bu se . T his a ssi g nme nt o f e rr or is w ith out me ri t. B. Su bst ant ive Re as ona ble ne ss “‘[E]ven if a sentenc e is c alculate d proper ly , i.e. the Guidelines wer e prope rly applied andT he S up rem e C o urt curre ntl y has b efo re it t he q ue st i o n of “wh ethe r, w he n de t erm i ning the ‘rea so na b l en ess’ 1 o f a dis t ri ct co urt s ent ence und er Uni t ed St at es v. B oo ker , 5 4 3 U .S

. 2 2 0 (2 0 0 5 ), it is a p p ro p ria te to re q u ire d istric t co u rts t o ju s t i f y a dev i at i on f

r om t he U ni t ed St at es Sent enc i ng G ui del i nes wi t h a f i ndi ng of ex t r aordi nar y ci r cums t anc es . ” See Un ited S ta te s v . G a ll , 4 4 6 F

. 3 d 8 8 4 (8 t h C i r. 20 0 6 ), cert
. grant ed , 12 7 S. C t
. 29 3 3 , 16 8 L. E d

. 2d 26 1 , 20 0 7 U

. S. LE X IS 7 5 2 5 (20 0 7 ) ( N o . 06

- 7 9 4 9 ) ( q uo t i ng t he q uest i o n present ed ). 8 the district court c lear ly

considere d the § 3553(a) fac tors and explained its rea soning, a sentenc e ca

n y et be unr easona

ble.’” Un ite d S

tates v . H us e in , 4 7 8 F. 3 d 3 1 8 , 3 3 2 (6 thC i r. 2 0 0 7 ) ( qu o t i n g United States v. Cage , 4 51 F .3 d 5 85 , 591 (1 0th Cir . 2 00 6) ). A s e nte nc e may be “ su bs tanti ve ly

unre a so na

ble wh e re the dis tr ic t c ourt ‘se lec t[ s] th e se nte nc e arb itr ari ly , b a s[e s] th e se nte nc e on imp e rm iss ibl e fac tors, fail[s] to consider pe rtinent § 3553(a) fac tors, or giv[es] an unreasonable amount of we ight to any pertinent fa ctor.’” Ferguson , 456 F.3d at 664 (quoting W ebb , 403 F.3d at 385). Al tho ug h w e a ff

or d a se nte nc e wi thi n th e Gu ide lin e s rang e a pr e sumpt ion of re a so na ble ne ss, see W illiams , 436 F.3d at 708, and Ri ta , 127 S.Ct

. at 2462, a sentenc e “f alling outside the Guidelines rang e [is] neither pr esumptively rea sonable nor presumptively unrea sonable.” Ferguson , 456 F.3d

a t 6 6 4

- 6 5 ( 6 th

Ci r . 2 0 0 6); see also United States v . Borho , 485 F.3d 904, 912 ( 6th Cir. 2007) (“A dramatic downwar d varia nce, how ever , is not per se or e ven pre sumptively unrea sonable.” ). “[W ]hen the distric t court indepe ndently chooses to deviate from the a dvisory g uidelines rang e (whether

above or below it), we apply a fo rm of propor tionality revie w: ‘the fa

rther the judge ’s sentenc e depa

rts from the guidelines sentenc e . . . the m ore compelling the justification based

on fac tors in se ction 3553(a) ’ must be.” Un ite d S tates v . W ill iam Da v is , 458 F.3d 491, 496 ( 6th Cir. 2 0 0 6 ) ( qu o t i n g United States v. De an , 414 F. 3d 725, 729 (7th Cir. 2005)). The district cour t 1 impose s a s u

b s t an t i v el y

u n re as o n ab l e s en t en ce wh er e i t“f ai l [ s ] t o i d en t i fy

th e cha rac teristics pec uliar to this defendant that justify the var iance .” United States v. Funk, 477 F.3d 421, 430 (6th Cir. 2007) (c i t i n g Un ite d S

tates v . Eura , 440 F.3d 625, 634 (4th Cir. 2006) (“[A] sentencingcourt must identifyW hi l e n ot ment i oned ex pres s l y by t he di s t r i ct cour t , we r ei t er at e t hat T eepl e c ons umed 4- 5 beers t hat 2 eveni ng. 9 the ind iv idu al aspec ts of the defendant’s c as e that fit within the factor s listed in 18 U.S.C . § 3553(a) and, in re liance on those finding s, impose a non-Guide lines sentence that is reasona ble.”) ). Whil e Teep le cha lle ng e s h is s e nte nc e a s su bs tanti ve ly

unre a so na

ble , h e do e s n ot p oint to specific fac tors that the district court impermissibly relied upon or

failed to c onsider—rather, he

asser ts that the fac ts here simply do not justi fy

a sente nce outside the Guidelines. We disag ree . The district cour

t re l i ed o n t he § 3553(a ) fa ctors it had alr eady discussed in finding that Tee ple dese rved a

senten ce o u t s i d e the Guidelines. As we have alr eady noted, the district cour

t highlig hted seve ral c onsiderations pec uliar to Tee ple: (1) Te epl e wa s permitted under a plea ag ree ment to pl ea d gu i lty to voluntary

manslaug hter, instead of murder; ( 2) Tee ple has a leng thy criminal re cord c onsisting of six juvenile convictions and his burg lary conviction as an adult; (3) the court wa s conce rned w ith protecting the public from f urther c rimes by

Tee ple (he re the district court

no te d T e e ple ’s patte rn

of pa st c ri min a l a c tiv ity

and wh a t a pp e are d to be a

re la ps e int o s uc h a c tiv ity afte r a 3- 4 y ear hiatus); (4) Te eple ha s a past history of ser ious drug abuse, a

nd now admits to having an alc ohol problem, for which Tee ple nee ds substance a buse treatment ; and (5) T eeple committed 2

a ser ious crime — he took the life of an unarme d strang er. Moreove r, the district c ourt observe d that the circumst an c e s in d ic a te d th a t T e e p le a

p p e ar e d to h av e f o r me d s o me d e g r e e o f

inte n t wh e nhe killed L y ons: Teeple took the kni fe from the glove box ear lier i n the evening and carried it into the party with him; he may

have be en trying to aveng e the be ating Ly ons g ave to Te eple’ s friend, D an Be nnett; and Tee ple threwthe knife a way afte r the stabbing , as he a nd his wife fle d the sce ne. Our r e vie w o f t

he re c or d sat isf

ie s us th a t th e dis tr ic t c ourt c are fu lly c on sid e re d a ll o f t

he se10

fac ts, and in light of them, sentence d Tee ple outside the Guidelines. Though the re sulting sentenc e is c e rt a inl y a su

bs tanti a l va

ri anc e fr om the Gu ide lin e s ra ng e , it c e rt a inl y do e s n ot r e pr e se nt t he mos t extreme varia

nce possible. In W

ill iam Da v is , though the ad visory Guidelines ra

ng e wa s 30 to 37 months, the district c ourt sentenc ed Davis to one day ’s imprisonment, mainly beca use Davis was 70 y ear s old at the t ime of sentencing and the underly ing crimes occurre d 14 y ear s ear lier. We found the se nte nc e unre a so na

ble and ob se rv e d “ [p]e rh a

ps mos t pr ob le matic a lly , th e se nte nc e re pr e se nts the most ex treme va

rianc e possible, leavingno room to make re asoned distinctions betwee n Davis’s varia nce a nd the varia

nces that other, more wor thy defe ndants may

deser ve.” W ill iam Da v is , 458 F.3d at 499. I n contra st to the sentence imposed in W ill iam Da v is , Te e ple ’s se nte nc e le ave s ampl e room for the district court to make r easone d distinctions between Te eple’ s varianc e an d th e v aria nces that other more — or less — worthy defe ndants may

deser ve. Th e dis tr ic t c ourt

did no t se le c t th e se nte nc e arb itr ari ly , b a se the se nte nc e on imp e rm iss ibl e fac tors, fail to consider

pertinent § 3553(a) factors, or g ive an unrea sonable amount of weight to any pertinent fa ctor. Critically , the district court justified the v ar i an ce b ased on r eleva nt § 3553(a) fac tors as they

related to Tee ple and his cr ime. We e cho our conclusion in United States v. Kathman , 49 0 F .3 d 5 20 , 5 26 (6 th C ir . 2 00 7) , w hic h a dd re sse d a do wnwa rd va ri anc e outsi de the Gu ide lin e s, [w] e find, re cog nizi ng that the advisory nature of the guidelines provides gre ater discretion to the district cour t, that the varia

nce in this cas e wa s n o t based on imp e r mi s s ib le o r

d is f av o r e d f a c to r s , p r o p e r ly

c o n s id e r e d

th e r e le v an t § 3 5 5 3 (a) fac tors, and wa s not the result of an unrea sonable amount of weig ht having been g iven to any of those fac tors. I n all, we find that the var iance , while substantial and requiringproportionally

g reater e x p l an at i o n, met this standard and w as not substantively

unrea sonable. III . C ON CL USI ON Acc ording ly , we AF F IRM the district court’s se ntence
.