Opinion ID: 146763
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review

Text: This Court reviews the procedural and substantive reasonableness of a district court’s sentence for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Levinson, 543 F.3d 190, 195 (3d Cir. 2008). We review a sentence for substantive reasonableness to determine “whether the final sentence, wherever it may lie within the permissible statutory range, 5 was premised upon appropriate and judicious consideration of the relevant factors.” United States v. Schweitzer, 454 F.3d 197, 204 (3d Cir. 2006). “If there are no procedural errors, our substantive review is highly deferential and we will affirm ‘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. King, - - - F.3d - - -, 2010 WL 1729733,  (3d Cir. 2010) (quoting United States v. Tomko, 562 F.3d 558, 568 (3d Cir. 2009)).