above, because the record does not contain clear evidence that the district court incorrectly interpreted or applied the aberrant-behavior departure provision, Solinger has not shown that his sentence was an abuse of discretion on these grounds. Solinger next argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court focused primarily on a single factor under § 3553(a), namely the impact his crime had on Clark, the victim teller. Solinger does not establish, however, that the district court gave an unreasonable amount of weight to this factor. Because the sentence was within the range recommended under the Guidelines, it is presumed to be reasonable, and Solinger cannot overcome this presumption. See United States v. Hunley, 290 Fed.Appx. 884, 886 (6th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>). The district court characterized Soling-er’s
holding that a sentencing judge who had listened to the defendants arguments in support of a belowguidelines sentence provided sufficient explanation for rejecting those arguments when he found that the defendants circumstances were insufficient to warrant a sentence lower than the guidelines range holding that a defendants arguments that he had no criminal record was fiftyone years old had major health problems served honorably in the military and that the district judge gave undue weight to a single factor were insufficient to rebut the presumption of reasonableness accorded his withinguidelines sentence recognizing generally if the ultimate sentence is reasonable and the sentencing judge did not commit procedural error in imposing that sentence we will not second guess the weight or lack thereof that the judge accorded to a given factor or to a specific argument made pursuant to that factor internal quotation marks and alteration omitted recognizing that this court applies an appellate presumption of reasonableness to a withinguidelines sentence holding that a court of appeals may afford a presumption of reasonableness to a withinguidelines sentence