conducted a detailed analysis of Pa-lacios’ offense and personal circumstances, including his family and finances, and provided a thorough explanation of its reasoning in selecting a sentence, specifically tying the sentence to multiple § 3553(a) factors. The court’s analysis demonstrated that it considered Palacios’ family circumstances — in particular, his five children in Florida and child support obligations — in selecting the sentence. Palacios’ arguments regarding his family also were not particularly strong or well-developed, as he did not demonstrate how his family’s experience took his circumstances outside the heartland of sentencing cases or outweighed the seriousness of the crime and impact on the victims. Cf. United States v. Boulware, 604 F.3d 832, 839-40 (4th Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>). While Palacios is correct that the district
holding that threatening employee to mind her own business investigating her videotaping her without her permission and forcing her to take polygraph could not be considered adverse employment actions because they had no effect on conditions of employment holding that a teachers complaint to school authorities that her principal had instructed her to make improper changes in her own students grades was unprotected because it was made pursuant to her official duties holding that the bia correctly imputed a parents knowledge that she and her children were not eligible for entry to the united states to her children holding that allegations that employees supervisors yelled at her told her she was a poor manager and gave her poor evaluations chastised her in front of customers and once required her to work with an injured back were insufficient to state title vii claim recognizing as weak argument that defendant should receive belowguidelines sentence because her incarceration would negatively impact her children and students where she provided no evidence that her circumstances were atypical