United States v. Dees, 467 F.3d 847, 851 (3d Cir. 2006).
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 to review the District Court’s final
judgment of conviction and sentence and under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) to review the
sentence imposed upon a defendant after revocation of supervised release.
A district court’s sentencing procedure is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
On abuse of discretion review, the Court
of Appeals gives due deference to the district court’s sentencing decision. See id.
District courts have discretion when sentencing and appellate review is limited to
determining whether the sentence imposed is reasonable. See id.
Our appellate review proceeds in two stages. It begins by ensuring that the
district court committed no significant procedural error, 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 and –– including an explanation for any deviation from
the Guidelines range.
United States v. Tomko, 562 F.3d 558, 567 (3d Cir. 2009) (en banc) (quoting Gall,
552 U.S. at 51).
Assuming that the district court’s sentencing decision is procedurally
sound, the appellate court should then consider the substantive
reasonableness of the sentence imposed under an abuse-of-discretion
standard. When conducting this review, the court will, of course, take into
account the totality of the circumstances, including the extent of any
variance from the Guidelines range. If the sentence is within the
Guidelines range, the appellate court may, but is not required to, apply a
presumption of reasonableness.
Gall, 552 U.S. at 51 (citing Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 347 (2007)).
Davis claims that the District Court’s sentence was substantively unreasonable. He does