“The amount of explanation needed in any particular case depends on the circumstances, and less explanation is typically needed when a district court sentences within an advisory guidelines range.” United States v. Curby, 595 F.3d 794, 797 (7th Cir.2010) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “A district court may consider a defendant's cooperation with the government as a basis for a reduced sentence [pursuant to § 3553(a) ], even if the government has not made a § 5K1.1 or Rule 35 motion.”

A sentencing court must address a defendant's principal arguments in mitigation unless they are too weak to merit discussion. See United States v. Marin–Castano, 688 F.3d 899, 902 (7th Cir.2012); United States v. Curby, 595 F.3d 794, 797 (7th Cir.2010); United States v. Cunningham, 429 F.3d 673, 679 (7th Cir.2005). Relying on Villegas–Miranda, Garcia–Segura now insists that the district court failed to address the argument that he was entitled to a 19–month state sentence credit.

A sentencing court must address a defendant's principal arguments in mitigation unless they are too weak to merit discussion. See United States v. Marin-Castano, 688 F.3d 899, 902 (7th Cir. 2012); United States v. Curby, 595 F.3d 794, 797 (7th Cir. 2000); United States v. Cunningham, 429 F.3d 673, 679 (7th Cir. 2005). Relying on Villegas-Miranda, Garcia-Segura now insists that the district court failed to address the argument that he was entitled to a 19-month state sentence credit.

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 128 S.Ct. 586, 597, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); see United States v. Snodgrass, 635 F.3d 324, 330 (7th Cir.2011). In selecting an appropriate sentence, district courts are expected to address principal, nonfrivolous arguments in mitigation, United States v. Martinez, 650 F.3d 667, 672 (7th Cir.2011); United States v. Gary, 613 F.3d 706, 709 (7th Cir.2010); United States v. Cunningham, 429 F.3d 673, 678–79 (7th Cir.2005), but should disregard contentions lacking factual foundation. “ [E]very defendant who asserts that his or her personal circumstances warrant leniency is compelled to supply a factual predicate for the contention,” United States v. Ramirez, 675 F.3d 634, 641 (7th Cir.2011); see United States v. Curby, 595 F.3d 794, 796–97 (7th Cir.2010); United States v. Diaz, 533 F.3d 574, 577–78 (7th Cir.2008); United States v. Tahzib, 513 F.3d 692, 695 (7th Cir.2008); United States v. Swanson, 483 F.3d 509, 513 (7th Cir.2007); United States v. Acosta, 474 F.3d 999, 1003–04 (7th Cir.2007); United States v. Cunningham, 429 F.3d 673, 679 (7th Cir.2005), and defendants who do not provide that foundation are “at the mercy of the instincts and intuitions of the sentencing judge,” United States v. Beier, 490 F.3d 572, 574 (7th Cir.2007). Moreover, even when arguments in mitigation are supported factually, judges need not “tick off every possible sentencing factor or detail and discuss, separately, every nuance of every argument.”

First, we conduct a de novo review for any procedural error. United States v. Curby, 595 F.3d 794, 796 (7th Cir.2010). If we determine that the district court committed no procedural error, we review the sentence for substantive reasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).

First, we conduct a de novo review for any procedural error. United States v. Curby, 595 F.3d 794, 796 (7th Cir. 2010). if we determine that the district court committed no procedural error, we review the sentence for substantive reasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion standard.

This is a question of law that we review de novo. See United States v. Curby, 595 F.3d 794, 796 (7th Cir. 2010). Subparagraph (a)(6) requires courts to consider "the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct."

Although the district court must address a defendant's meritorious argument in mitigation, that consideration need not be exhaustive, and less explanation is needed when the court imposes a within- or below-guidelines sentence. See United States v. Graham, 915 F.3d 456, 459 (7th Cir. 2019); United States v. Curby, 595 F.3d 794, 797 (7th Cir. 2010). In fact, a court's statement that it has reviewed the written argument can suffice to demonstrate that it considered the argument and rejected it.

See Kappes, 782 F.3d at 864 ("[L]ess explanation [in response to a defendant's argument in mitigation] is typically needed when a court sentences within an advisory guidelines range." (quoting United States v. Curby, 595 F.3d 794, 797 (7th Cir. 2010) (per curiam))). We conclude the court adequately addressed Terronez's mitigation argument and affirm the 110-month sentence.

And the court addressed and rejected Rutherford's main mitigation argument—that the accident was not his fault. See United States v. Curby, 595 F.3d 794, 798 (7th Cir. 2010). The court repeated many times that it did not believe Rutherford because "the evidence [didn't] back up his story."