The court added that the original sentence was needed “to afford adequate deterrence.” The court explained that “[w]hile the situation with defendant’s brother is sad, at this point, it is not clear that defendant is an acceptable donor or that serving the original 100-month sentence would prevent him from serving as a donor.” The district court thus provided a reasoned explanation as to why it declined to reduce Dunn’s sentence. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007) (“The 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.”); Carty, 520 F.3d at 992. But cf. Trujillo, 713 F.3d at 1010, 1011 (<HOLDING>). Dunn does not point to any evidence
holding the district courts denial of a  3582c2 motion was legal error for its total omission in addressing defendants nonfrivolous arguments under the  3553a factors holding that nothing in booker or elsewhere requires the district court to state on the record that it has explicitly considered each of the  3553a factors or to discuss each of the  3553a factors holding that it is sufficient for a court to acknowledge its consideration of the parties arguments and the 3553a factors holding that the district court is not required to state on the record that it has explicitly considered each of the  3553a factors or to discuss each of the  3553a factors holding that a district courts failure to consider the 18 usc  3553a factors was plain error relying on gall