sentence was unreasonable because the “District Court did not adequately address all the factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), such as [his] medical history and characteristics ... as well as possible sentencing disparities with other similarly situated defendants.” (Appellant’s Op. Br. at 15.) Second, he argues that the imposition of another year of supervised release created an unwarranted disparity between him and other similarly situated defendants. Finally, he maintains that certain statements made by the government at sentencing were unduly prejudicial. II. Discussion In general, we review a criminal defendant’s sentence for reasonableness. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); see also United States v. Bungar, 478 F.3d 540, 543 (3d Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). However, when a defendant fails to preserve
holding that reasonableness review applies to a sentence imposed upon a revocation of supervised release holding that the revocation of one term of supervised release did not automatically terminate another holding that further supervised release may be ordered as a sentence for violation of supervised release holding that invitederror doctrine precludes defendant from challenging sentence of supervised release where defendant requested sentence of supervised release holding the district courts revocation of defendants term of supervised release did not end the courts jurisdiction over defendants release