Although it was an upward variance from the guideline range of 292-365 months, the Court held that the life sentence was substantively reasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion by failing to consider his age, amenability to treatment, acceptance of responsibility, or the circumstances of his prior offenses. The district court did not abuse its discretion by giving significant weight to any irrelevant sentencing factors. And the district court did not unreasonably weigh the sentencing factors. Instead, the court reasonably concluded that the guideline range did not adequately reflect his criminal history or the need to protect the public, and that finding was within the court’s discretion.
