facts of the case before it. This individualized assessment need not be elaborate or lengthy, but it must provide a rationale tailored to the particular case at hand and adequate to permit meaningful appellate review.”) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Turning to the substantive reasonableness of Susi’s sentence, we must consider whether the totality of the circumstances shows that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Susi to 160 months’ imprisonment on the wire fraud counts. We have previously held that “a sentence located within a correctly calculated guidelines range is presumptively reasonable.” United States v. Abu AlI, 528 F.3d 210, 261 (4th Cir.2008); see Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 347, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007) (<HOLDING>). However, Susi was sentenced to a term of
holding that a court of appeals may apply a presumption of reasonableness to a district court sentence that reflects a proper application of the sentencing guidelines holding that a court of appeals may afford a presumption of reasonableness to a withinguidelines sentence holding that we may apply a presumption of reasonableness to a sentence within the guidelines range holding that a court of appeals may presume reasonable a district courts proper application of the sentencing guidelines holding that district court may not presume reasonableness of guidelines sentencing range in particular case