Rather, we presume that the district court understood its discretion, absent clear evidence to the contrary." Santillana, 540 F.3d at 431 (citations omitted); see United States v. Theunick, 651 F.3d 578, 592 (6th Cir. 2011) (finding a departure unreviewable in the U.S.S.G. § 5H1.4 context for these reasons); United States v. Darji, 609 F. App'x 320, 330-31 (6th Cir. 2015) (same); United States v. Hohn, 443 F. App'x 931, 933 (6th Cir. 2011) (same). If the district court does not appear to have misunderstood its discretion:

" U.S.S.G. § 5H1.4. Defendant "did not make any specific arguments or present any evidence in his sentencing memorandum or [otherwise] regarding the efficiencies and costs of home confinement." United States v. Hohn, 443 Fed. App'x. 931, 933 (6th Cir. 2011). Nor is such evidence in the PSR.