Dist.Ct. did not err in sentencing defendant to below Guidelines, 144-month term of incarceration on Hobbs Act robbery and firearm charges, even though defendant argued that Dist. Ct. failed to address his financial hardship, his family ties, and his lack of criminal record. Dist.Ct. stated that it had reviewed defendant’s 12-page sentencing memorandum and rejected defendant’s claim that his financial hardship provided meaningful excuse for his criminal conduct. Also, while Dist. Ct. did not specifically discuss defendant’s lack of criminal record, his strong family ties or drug use, Dist. Ct. received written and oral arguments that discussed said issues and imposed below-Guidelines range sentence, so as to evidence fact that Dist. Ct. had considered said arguments and rejected them. Moreover, defendant presented only stock arguments with respect to his mitigation claims, which Dist. Ct. was free to reject without discussion.
