forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).” United States v. Tristan-Madrigal, 601 F.3d 629, 632-33 (6th Cir. 2010). “A sentence may be considered substantively unreasonable when the district court selects a sentence arbitrarily, bases the sentence on impermissible factors, fails to consider relevant sentencing factors, or gives an unreasonable amount of weight to any pertinent factor.” United States v. Conatser, 514 F.3d 508, 520 (6th Cir. 2008). We apply a rebuttable presumption of substantive reasonableness to Cosper’s within-guidelines sentence. United States v. Vonner, 516 F.3d 382, 389-90 (6th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Cosper acknowledges that the district court’s denial of a downward departure is generally not cognizable on appeal. See United States v. Heath, 525 F.3d 451, 459 (6th Cir. 2008) (<HOLDING>). Cosper instead contends that the district
holding that district court may not depart downward to preserve defendants ability to make restitution holding that a circuit court has no jurisdiction to review a district courts discretionary decision not to depart downward from the guidelines but would have jurisdiction if the district court based its decision on the belief that it did not have the authority to depart holding that this court does not review decisions of a district court not to depart downward unless the record reflects that the district court was not aware of or did not understand its discretion to make such a departure holding that this court laeks the authority to review a sentencing courts denial of a downward departure unless the court failed to understand its authority to do so holding that we will not review such a decision unless the record reflects that the district court was not aware of or did not understand its discretion