part, the request for a downward variance. The District Court sentenced Giamo to 192
months, six months below the bottom of the Guidelines range.
II. Jurisdiction and Standard of Review
The District Court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231. We have jurisdiction,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
Following the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220
(2005), the Guidelines are advisory and “appellate review of sentencing decisions is
limited to determining whether they are ‘reasonable.’” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 46 (2007). Generally, reasonableness consists of both procedural and substantive
reasonableness. See United States v. Tomko, 562 F.3d 558, 567 (3d Cir. 2009). Here,
Giamo only challenges the substantive reasonableness of his sentence. This Court has
held that it will affirm a district court’s sentence “unless no reasonable sentencing court
would have imposed the same sentence on that particular defendant for the reasons the
district court provided.” Id. at 568.
The standard of review for variances granted pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
abuse of discretion. Gall, 552 U.S. at 46; Tomko, 562 F.3d at 567.
Although Giamo argues that the District Court erred in denying his motion seeking
a downward departure pursuant to U.S.S.G. §5H1.3, this Court cannot review this
decision. United States v. Jackson, 467 F.3d 834, 839 (3d Cir. 2006) (“[C]ourts of