respect for the law, provide for deterrence, or protect the
community. The court furthermore found the advisory guideline
range failed to serve the sentencing factors under § 3553(a).
Based on Sanders’s sustained history of criminal
activity, the number of convictions for which no criminal points
were assessed, his likelihood of continuing criminal activity,
failure of prior periods of incarceration, and the seriousness
and scope of the series of offenses before the court, the court
found the advisory guideline range failed to promote respect for
the law, provide for deterrence, and account for the nature and
circumstances of the underlying offense. In determining an
appropriate range and sentence, the court separately reviewed
the ranges for an offense level twenty-five and criminal history
category IV and V, and found each to be inadequate. The court
determined that a range of 110 to 137 months, and a sentence of
137 months, were each adequate but not longer than necessary to
achieve the sentencing objectives under § 3553(a).
After reviewing the record and giving due deference to
the district court’s decision, we conclude that the district
court did not abuse its discretion, and Sanders’s sentence is
both procedurally and substantively reasonable. The district
court acted reasonably both with respect to its decision to
sentence Sanders outside his advisory guideline range, and with
respect to the extent of its divergence from that range.