context: Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a sentence at the bottom of Reynard's applicable advisory Guidelines range, as there is no indication that the district court overlooked or misapplied a relevant section 3553(a) factor, gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing appropriate factors.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 575 F.3d 834, 849
citation_a.parenthetical: absent reversible procedural error, appellate court reviews reasonableness of district court's sentence for abuse of discretion
citation_a.sentence: See United States v. Stults, 575 F.3d 834, 849 (8th Cir.2009) (absent reversible procedural error, appellate court reviews reasonableness of district court’s sentence for abuse of discretion); United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1003-04 (8th Cir.2005) (defining ways in which abuse of discretion may occur); see also United States v. Shuler, 598 F.3d 444, 448 (8th Cir.2010) (appellate role is limited to determining substantive reasonableness of specific sentence where advisory Guidelines range was determined in accordance with § 2G2.2); United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir.2009) (en banc) (appellate presumption of reasonableness may be applied to within-Guidelines-range sentence).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 572 F.3d 455, 461
citation_b.parenthetical: appellate presumption of reasonableness may be applied to within-Guidelines-range sentence
citation_b.sentence: See United States v. Stults, 575 F.3d 834, 849 (8th Cir.2009) (absent reversible procedural error, appellate court reviews reasonableness of district court’s sentence for abuse of discretion); United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1003-04 (8th Cir.2005) (defining ways in which abuse of discretion may occur); see also United States v. Shuler, 598 F.3d 444, 448 (8th Cir.2010) (appellate role is limited to determining substantive reasonableness of specific sentence where advisory Guidelines range was determined in accordance with § 2G2.2); United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir.2009) (en banc) (appellate presumption of reasonableness may be applied to within-Guidelines-range sentence).