offense, to adequately deter such conduct, and to protect the public from further crimes by Torres-Palos. Furthermore, the district court’s response to Torres-Palos’s motion for a below-the-Guidelines sentence was not its only discussion of the circumstances of his case. After hearing Torres-Palos’s statement in allocution, the district court not only complimented Torres-Palos on his completion of the drug and alcohol treatment program, but also emphasized that his record indicated “a very, very serious problem with drinking and driving.” (Sentencing Hr’g Tr., Dist. Ct. Docket No. 29, at 14.) Torres-Palos does not point to any relevant § 3553(a) factor or argument he presented that the district court neglected to address. See United States v. Wallace, 597 F.3d 794, 803 (6th Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Dexta, 470 F.3d 612, 614-15
holding that when a defendant raises a nonfrivolous argument for a lower sentence the record must show that the district court considered it and explained the basis for rejecting it 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 holding that the defendants sentence was reasonable when the district court considered the parties arguments and provided a reasoned basis for its choice of sentence holding argument not waived for failure to object where party previously raised argument and district court considered and rejected it holding the government waived its argument on appeal that the defendant did not have standing to challenge a search when it failed to raise the argument to the district court