procedural error, and if the sentence is free from such error,
we then consider substantive reasonableness. Id. at 51.
Procedural error includes improperly calculating the Sentencing
Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines range as mandatory,
failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors, and
failing to adequately explain the selected sentence. Id. To
adequately explain the sentence, the district court must make an
“individualized assessment” by applying the relevant § 3553(a)
factors to the case’s specific circumstances. United States v.
Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009). Substantive
reasonableness is determined by considering the totality of the
circumstances, and if the sentence is within the
properly-calculated Guidelines range, this court applies a
presumption of reasonableness. United States v. Strieper, 666
F.3d 288, 295 (4th Cir. 2012).
The district court heard argument from the parties,
afforded Marimo an opportunity to allocute, and imposed a
sentence of eighteen months—at the bottom of the Sentencing
Guidelines range. The court expressly considered the § 3553(a)
factors and rendered an individualized assessment in this case.
The court stated that the sentence was sufficiently severe, but
not greater than necessary, to punish the offense, to promote
respect for the law, and discourage this type of conduct. We
conclude that Marimo has not rebutted the presumption of