... I believe the low end of the Guideline range is appropriate and will satisfy and address the factors in Section 3553 that I have just reviewed. R.30 at 15-16. II DISCUSSION A. Mr. Diaz contends that the district court misapprehended the extent of its authority to impose a sentence outside the advisory guidelines range. In support of this contention, he relies on the district court’s statement that factors such as the conditions of his pretrial confinement did not “warrant any deviation from the Guidelines.” R.30 at 15 (emphasis added). Notably, Mr. Diaz acknowledges the court’s affirmative statement that it was basing its sentence on the factors in section 3553(a). In Mr. Diaz’s view, however, this reference to section 3553(a) merely shows that the court was “confused th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). Reading the district court’s statement in
holding that sentencing error did not affect defendants substantial rights because error did not result in longer term of imprisonment holding that use of the pr ebooker term departure was not error because it did not make a substantive difference holding that error in method by which interest from damages award was calculated was an error in substantive law not a clerical or mathematical error holding that the erroneous use of the term burglary in the beginning of the written jury instructions was not fundamental because any error was cured by the correct use of the term theft in the latter portion of the written instructions holding that use of the term enhancement also a pr ebooker term did not require reversal where district court properly considered the guidelines to be advisory