in ritualistic incantation in order to establish consideration of a legal issue.” United States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 642 (4th Cir.1995). Nor is there a requirement that the district court make specific findings relating to each of the factors considered. As the Third Circuit has noted: In fact, there is no requirement that the district court make specific findings with respect to each of the section 3553(a) factors it considered.... At the time of sen- fencing, the district court simply must state on the record its general reasons under section 3553(a) for rejecting Chapter 7 policy statements it considered and for imposing a more stringent sentence. United States v. Blackston, 940 F.2d 877, 893-94 (3d Cir.1991); see also United States v. Graves, 914 F.2d 159, 160 (11th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Lockard, 910 F.2d 542, 546
holding that a district court satisfies its obligation to make factual findings when it explicitly adopts the factual findings set forth in the presentence report holding that trial court must make findings of fact on all material factual issues that involve ultimate issues in divorce and must make findings that characterize and value each asset or liability on which disputed evidence was presented holding that there is no requirement that the district court make specific factual findings with respect to each 3353a factor holding that despite a trial courts failure to make specific factual findings an appellate court is free to affirm on any grounds for which there is sufficient record to permit conclusions of law holding the trial court is not required to make specific findings of fact on the record for each wham factor if the record contains sufficient evidentiary support for the finding of lack of good cause