Opinion ID: 3039705
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: any pertinent policy statement--

Text: (A) issued by the Sentencing 16 impose. Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 596; Gunter, 462 F.3d at 247. As an appellate court, our role is two-fold. We must first ensure that the district court committed no significant procedural error in arriving at its decision, “such as failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence–including an explanation for any deviation from the Guidelines range.” Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597. We review the district court’s decision under an abuse-of-discretion standard, id., but the amount of deference we give will depend on the type of procedural error asserted on appeal. For example, a district court will be held to have abused its discretion if its decision was based on a clearly erroneous factual conclusion or an erroneous legal conclusion. United States v. McComb, No. 07-5003, 2007 WL 4393142, at  (10th Cir. Dec. 18, 2007); see also Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81, 100 Commission ..., subject to any amendments made to such policy statement by act of Congress ...; (B) that, except as provided in section 3742(g), is in effect on the date the defendant is sentenced.