Opinion ID: 2977361
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Reasonable and sufficient

Text: Wells also argues that the district court committed procedural error because it stated it was imposing a “reasonable and sufficient” sentence, (Id., JA 95), rather than “a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes of section 3553(a)(2).” United States v. Wilms, 495 F.3d 277, 281 (6th Cir 2007) (citations omitted). Wells is correct that the district court stated the wrong standard in announcing his sentence. However, as this Court has previously stated, - 12 - No. 07-5914 USA v. Wells “the mere fact that the district court utters the word ‘reasonableness’ or recognizes that we apply a presumption of reasonableness on appeals does not render its sentencing determination procedurally unreasonable.” Id. (citing United States v. Davis, 458 F.3d 505, 511 (6th Cir. 2006)). Considering our repeated conclusion that “the focus on sentencing ‘is on substance rather than form’ and that sentencing does not require any particular ‘magic words,’” Davis, 458 F.3d at 511 (quoting Vonner, 452 F.3d at 568 & n.4), we find that the district court’s reference to “reasonable and sufficient” does not render Wells’s sentence procedurally unreasonable.