Opinion ID: 4574566
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: wheeler’s sentence was reasonable

Text: Lastly, Wheeler argues that the District Court weighed the sentencing factors improperly and imposed a sentence that was substantively unreasonable. We review for abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46 (2007). We will affirm a sentence as substantively reasonable “unless no reasonable sentencing court would have imposed the same sentence on that particular defendant for the reasons the district court provided.” United States v. Tomko, 562 F.3d 558, 568 (3d Cir. 2009) (en banc). The parties dispute whether Wheeler preserved a procedural objection. Even if he did, the sentence was both procedurally and substantively reasonable. The District Court considered the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). It discussed the seriousness of his crime and criminal history, but also weighed his “many positive attributes.” App. 65. It then sentenced him to ten years total, the bottom of the guidelines range and well below the sixty-year statutory maximum. That judgment was reasonable, and we will not disturb it. 5