state conviction. Moreover, the 21-month sentence at the low end of the guidelines range was reasonable and supported by the district court’s explanation. AFFIRMED. 1 . These factors include: (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant; (2) the need for the sentence imposed to afford adequate deterrence; (3) the need to protect the public; (4) the need to provide the defendant with educational or vocational training or medical care; (5) the Sentencing Guidelines range; (6) the pertinent policy statements of the Sentencing Commission; (7) the need to avoid unwanted sentencing disparities; and (8) the need to provide restitution to victims. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B)-(D), and (a)(4)—(7). 2 . See also Rita, 127 S.Ct. at 2462 (<HOLDING>); United States v. Campbell, 491 F.3d 1306,
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 recognizing that this court applies an appellate presumption of reasonableness to a withinguidelines sentence holding a court of appeals may apply a presumption of reasonableness to a district court sentence that reflects a proper application of the sentencing guidelines recognizing a presumption of reasonableness holding that a court of appeals may afford a presumption of reasonableness to a withinguidelines sentence