it noted that Jenkins’ mother denied several of his statements about his upbringing. It asserted that the § 3553(a) factors—particularly the need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, to provide just punishment, to afford adequate deterrence to others, and to protect the public—warranted an upward variance to 240 months, the statutory maximum, for the robbery offense. The record also reflects that the district court listened to the arguments of both the government and the defense at the sentence hearing, interjected with questions during defense counsel’s arguments, and understood Jenkins’ characteristics and difficult background. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 357-58, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2468-69, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007) (<HOLDING>). For example, at the sentence hearing defense
holding that a sentencing judges brief explanation was legally sufficient because the record showed that the judge listened to each argument considered supporting evidence and was aware of the defendants characteristics and background holding that counsel was not ineffective for failing to present mitigating evidence at sentencing because the trial record clearly indicated that the sentencing judge was aware of many of the mitigators that counsel was presenting to this court on appeal holding that a party waives an argument that it raises in the background section of its brief but not in the argument section holding evidence legally sufficient holding that the record must reflect both that the district judge considered the defendants argument and that the judge explained the basis for rejecting it