a short vacation to Canada,” Appellee Br. 84. We disagree that bringing a personal collection to the start of a vacation as opposed to leaving it at home supplies an appropriate basis for sentencing a person to an additional 10 years in prison. In addition, though we accept the district court’s observation that Jenkins’s conduct at trial and during sentencing proceedings reflected a “disdain for the law,” we find problematic the district court’s exclusive reliance on this factor as justification for dramatically increasing Jenkins’s sentence. See App. 860-61. While we do not condone Jenkins’s lack of respect for the law, it simply cannot bear the weight the district court assigned to it. Dorvee, 616 F.3d at 183; cf. United States v. Gerezano-Rosales, 692 F.3d 393, 401 (5th Cir. 2012) (<HOLDING>). Jenkins had already paid heavily for his
holding district courts decision to increase a defendants sentence from 71 to 108 months based on defendants disrespect for the law constituted clear error in judgement in balancing the sentencing factors holding in the ineffectiveassistanceofcounsel context that any increase in a defendants sentence is prejudicial holding that sentencing error is harmless if the error did not affect the district courts selection of the sentence imposed holding that the district courts error in calculating the amount of drugs at issue was harmless because the error had no impact on the defendants sentence holding that defendants appeal based on the district courts alleged error in not considering defendants medical condition when sentencing defendant in violation of  3553a2d was appealable under  3742a1