U.S. v. Armond

Dist. Ct. did not err in re-sentencing defendant to 104-month term of incarceration on charge of distributing crack and powder cocaine. While defendant argued that Dist. Ct. erred in failing to re-calculate applicable guideline range at instant second sentencing hearing, Dist. Ct. was not required to recalculate sentencing range, where defendant on multiple occasions confirmed applicable sentencing range at first sentencing hearing, and defendant did not register any objection to said range at second sentencing hearing. Also, Dist. Ct. did not improperly treat Sentencing Guidelines as presumptively reasonable, where, when imposing instant sentence, Dist. Ct. discussed defendant’s criminal history and tailored his sentence to his specific circumstances that included consideration of section 3553(a) factors, as well as his age and intensive mental health treatment.