to reflect the statutory sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553. We conclude from the record that Davis’s sentence is reasonable. The district court correctly applied the guidelines, and it articulated in detail the § 3553 factors that it considered in choosing the guideline sentence. Davis fails to show any abuse of discretion in the district court’s imposition of the 20-year sentence. Accordingly, we affirm Davis’s sentence. 2. Williams’s sentence Williams asserts that his sentence violates the Sixth Amendment because the district court, not the jury, made the finding that he participated in the October 1 robbery and was culpable for the death of 'the Brink s guard. His argument is foreclosed by binding precedent. See United States v. Smith, 741 F.3d 1211, 1226-27 (11th Cir.2013) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Faust, 456 F.3d 1342,
holding that district court may treat acquitted conduct as relevant conduct at sentencing holding that a district court may not impose a sentencing enhancement based on conduct of which the jury acquitted the defendant holding that sentencing enhancements based on judicial factfinding even when based on acquitted conduct do not violate the sixth amendment holding that the district court could constitutionally consider the acquitted conduct in rico sentencing holding that a sentencing court may consider acquitted conduct or uncharged criminal conduct