The district court must adequately explain the chosen sentence, and in doing so "should set forth enough to satisfy the appellate court that [it] has considered the parties' arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising [its] own legal decisionmaking authority." United States v. Agbai, 497 F.3d 1226, 1230 (11th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted); see Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S. Ct. at 597. If we find that the sentence is procedurally reasonable, we must then determine whether the sentence is substantively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances, including whether the § 3553(a) factors actually support the sentence at issue.

Although a sentencing court is not required to state on the record that it has explicitly considered each of the § 3553(a) factors or to discuss each factor, it should set forth enough to satisfy an appellate court that it has considered the parties' arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising its legal decisionmaking authority. See United States v. Agbai, 497 F.3d 1226, 1230 (11th Cir. 2007). Here, the district court implicitly adopted the guideline range submitted by the government and agreed to by Varela.

Generally, when sentencing inside the advisory guideline range, the district court is not required to state explicitly that it has considered each of the § 3553(a) factors in open court, or to give a lengthy explanation for its sentence. See United States v. Agbai, 497 F.3d 1226, 1230 (11th Cir. 2007) (per curiam). In determining the substantive reasonableness of a sentence, we "take into account the totality of the circumstances."

Generally, when sentencing inside the advisory guideline range, the district court is not required to state explicitly that it has considered each of the § 3553(a) factors, or to give a lengthy explanation for its sentence. See United States v. Agbai 497 F.3d 1226, 1230 (11th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) ( citing Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 355-59, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2468-69, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007)). "The weight to be accorded any given § 3553(a) factor is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the district court."

Generally, when sentencing inside the advisory guideline range, the district court is not required to state explicitly that it has considered each of the § 3553(a) factors in open court, or give a lengthy explanation for its sentence. See United States v. Agbai, 497 F.3d 1226, 1230 (11th Cir. 2007) (citing Rita, 127 S.Ct. at 2468-69). First, we reject Russaw's claim that his sentence was procedurally unreasonable.

If the court imposes a sentence within the guidelines, it is not necessary to give a detailed explanation of its reasons, so long as it "set[s] forth enough to satisfy the appellate court that [it] has considered the parties' arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising [its] own legal decision-making authority." United States v. Agbai 497 F.3d 1226, 1230 (11th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (citation and quotation marks omitted). Here, Pollard specifically asked the court to accept the government's waiver of the presentence investigation.

We review the final sentence imposed by the district court for reasonableness. United States v. Agbai, 497 F.3d 1226, 1229 (11th Cir. 2007). The Supreme Court recently clarified that the reasonableness standard is synonymous with the abuse of discretion standard.

However, "`[t]he sentencing judge should set forth enough to satisfy the appellate court that he has considered the parties' arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising his own legal decision-making authority.'" United States v. Agbai, 497 F.3d 1226, 1230 (11th Cir. 2007) (quoting Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. ___, ___, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2468, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007)). Generally, when sentencing within the advisory guidelines range, the district court is not required to give a lengthy explanation for its sentence if the case is typical of those contemplated by the Sentencing Commission.

Id. A statement of reasons for a criminal sentence is particularly important. Id. While a sentencing judge is not required to state on the record that it has explicitly considered each of the § 3553(a) factors or to discuss each of the § 3553(a) factors, United States v. Scott, 426 F.3d 1324, 1329 (11th Cir. 2005), "`[t]he sentencing judge should set forth enough to satisfy the appellate court that he has considered the parties' arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising his own legal decisionmaking authority,'" United States v. Agbai 497 F.3d 1226, 1230 (11th Cir. 2007) (quoting Rita, 127 S.Ct. at 2468). Generally, when sentencing within the advisory Guidelines range, the district court is not required to give a lengthy explanation for its sentence if the case is typical of those contemplated by the Sentencing Commission.

Generally, when sentencing inside the advisory guideline range, the district court is required neither to state explicitly that it has considered each of the § 3553(a) factors in open court, nor to give a lengthy explanation for its sentence. See United States v. Agbai 497 F.3d 1226, 1230 (11th Cir. 2007) (citing Rita, ___ U.S. at ___, 127 S.Ct. at 2468-69); see also United States v. Scott, 426 F.3d 1324, 1329 (11th Cir. 2005) ("[N]othing in Booker or elsewhere requires the district court to state on the record that it has explicitly considered each of the § 3553(a) factors or to discuss each of the § 3553(a) factors."). 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) provides that the district court "shall impose a sentence that is sufficient, but not greater than necessary," to comply with the need for the sentence imposed: