that the district court’s rote statement that it considered all the relevant factors was insufficient to adequately explain the district court’s rationale for its sentencing determination). Finally, in United States v. Morris, we again reiterated that Williams’s “rebutta-ble presumption does not relieve the district court of the obligation to consider other relevant statutory factors or sufficiently articulate its reasoning so as to permit reasonable appellate review.”448 F.3d 929, 931 (6th Cir.2006) (citing Richardson, 437 F.3d at 554). When reading these cases in concert, a consistent theme emerges. The Williams rebuttable presumption does not relieve a district court of its burden to communicate clearly its reasons for imposing a specific sentence. See McBride, 434 F.3d at 476 n. 3 (<HOLDING>) (emphasis added). Overall, the record must be
holding that nothing in booker or elsewhere requires the district court to state on the record that it has explicitly considered each of the  3553a factors or to discuss each of the  3553a factors holding that only relevant factors must be considered holding that the district court is not required to state on the record that it has explicitly considered each of the  3553a factors or to discuss each of the  3553a factors holding that it is sufficient for a court to acknowledge its consideration of the parties arguments and the 3553a factors holding that there must be sufficient evidence in the record to affirmatively demonstrate the courts consideration of the relevant section 3553a factors