Dist. Ct. did not err in sentencing defendant to 60-month term of incarceration on single counts of wire fraud, mail fraud and tax fraud arising out of defendant’s theft of over $600,000 of his employer’s funds, even though applicable sentencing range, as determined by parties and adopted by Dist. Ct., was 21-to-27 months incarceration. Sentence was reasonable given serious financial blow defendant inflicted on small family business over long period of time, and Dist. Ct. gave adequate consideration to defendant’s mitigation evidence regarding defendant’s service to his church and others. Dist. Ct. erred, though, in attempting to recalculate upward applicable sentencing guideline range as means to further explain instant sentence, where said attempt came after defendant had filed notice of appeal, since Dist. Ct. lacked jurisdiction to do so.