than the one ultimately imposed, an aggrieved party sufficiently alerts the district court of its responsibility to render an individualized explanation addressing those arguments, and thus preserves its claim.”). This review requires consideration of both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of a sentence. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). This court must first assess whether the district court properly calculated the advisory Guidelines range, considered the § 3553(a) factors, sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Id. at 49-50, 128 S.Ct. 586; see Lynn, 592 F.3d at 576 (“[A]n individualized explanation must accompany every sentence.”) (emphasis in original); United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>) (internal quotation marks and citation
holding plaintiff must prove that he or she was deprived of  an opportunity  granted at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner for a hearing appropriate to the nature of the case holding that district court must conduct individualized assessment based on particular facts of each case holding that constitution requires  an opportunity  granted at a meaningful time and a meaningful manner  for a hearing appropriate to the nature of the case holding that the individualized assessment  must provide a rationale tailored to the particular case at hand and be adequate to permit meaningful appellate review holding that suspicion must be individualized