Opinion ID: 180048
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Woolf Turk's Other Claims

Text: Woolf Turk's remaining claims are without merit. Her assertion that the district court erred in finding that her offense involved 50 or more victims draws upon the same reasoning as her argument that the loss amount is zero, and fails for the same reasons. Upon review of the sentencing transcript, we are also satisfied that the sentencing court took more than adequate account of the § 3553(a) factors in, inter alia, stating the Guidelines calculation and range, reviewing the offense conduct, reading extensively from various statements submitted by victims and supporters, acknowledging Woolf Turk's personal circumstances, and discussing the need for the sentence to reflect appropriately the seriousness of the offense and provide just punishment. We will not conclude that a district judge shirked her obligation to consider the § 3553(a) factors simply because she did not ... expressly parse or address every argument relating to those factors that the defendant advanced. United States v. Fernandez, 443 F.3d 19, 31 (2d Cir.2006). Finally, there is no question that the sentence imposed was substantively reasonable because it was securely within the range of permissible decisions. United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180, 189 (2d Cir.2008) (en banc). Indeed, in weighing both the severe impact of Woolf Turk's offense conduct on her many victims and the various mitigating personal circumstances of her lifeand in light of the applicable Guidelines range of 121-151 months' imprisonmentthe district court ultimately sentenced Woolf Turk to less than half of the lowest Guidelines sentence. We see no basis upon which to find that Woolf Turk's sentence was substantively unreasonable.