context: Moreover, because the district court did not calculate the applicable Guidelines range, it could not adequately explain "the extent of [any] deviation" from that range.
citation_a.signal: no signal
citation_a.identifier: 552 U.S. 50, 50
citation_a.parenthetical: finding it "uncontroversial that a major departure [from the Guidelines range] should be supported by a more significant justification than a minor one"
citation_a.sentence: Gall, 552 U.S. at 50, 128 S.Ct. 586 (finding it “uncontroversial that a major departure [from the Guidelines range] should be supported by a more significant justification than a minor one”); see also United States v. Munoz-Camarena, 631 F.3d 1028, 1031 (9th Cir.2011) (“The extent [of a variance] necessarily is different when the range is different, so a one-size-fits-all explanation ordinarily does not suffice.”).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 631 F.3d 1028, 1031
citation_b.parenthetical: "The extent [of a variance] necessarily is different when the range is different, so a one-size-fits-all explanation ordinarily does not suffice."
citation_b.sentence: Gall, 552 U.S. at 50, 128 S.Ct. 586 (finding it “uncontroversial that a major departure [from the Guidelines range] should be supported by a more significant justification than a minor one”); see also United States v. Munoz-Camarena, 631 F.3d 1028, 1031 (9th Cir.2011) (“The extent [of a variance] necessarily is different when the range is different, so a one-size-fits-all explanation ordinarily does not suffice.”).