Opinion ID: 2979084
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Consideration of the factors in aggregate

Text: Although it is true that major variances must be supported by significant justifications, Gall, 552 U.S. at 50, in crafting Adams’ sentence the district court carefully and comprehensively considered the totality of the circumstances, the recommended Guidelines sentence, and all relevant § 3553(a) factors. After this thorough analysis, the district court found that a sentence within the Guidelines range would not be appropriate. The district court found that because children were 13 involved, this was a serious offense, and because Adams lacked direction and control, he was a serious offender; indeed, the district court found that all factors considered were quite serious. The district court did not, as Adams suggests, rely predominantly on only three factors. We “must give due deference to the district court’s decision that the § 3553(a) factors, on the whole, justify the extent of the variance.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. Adams requests that we reevaluate the factors considered by the district court and weigh them differently, but due to the significant deference owed to the district court in this situation, that is improper. Because the district court did not place unreasonable weight on the factors considered in this case, the sentence is not substantively unreasonable.