based on clearly erroneous facts”). For substantive reasonableness, the linchpin is “a plausible sentencing rationale and a defensible result.” United States v. Pol-Flores, 644 F.3d 1, 4-5 (1st Cir.2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). An established roadmap exists to guide sentencing courts when discerning a reasonable sentence, which begins with assessing the GSR. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 49-50, 128 S.Ct. 586; United States v. Madera-Ortiz, 637 F.3d 26, 29-30 (1st Cir.2011); United States v. Martin, 520 F.3d 87, 91-92 (1st Cir.2008). The sentencing court must also consider a number of relevant factors, see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), but “the weighting of those factors is largely within the court’s informed discretion.” Clogston, 662 F.3d at 593; see Gall, 552 U.S. at 49-50, 128 S.Ct. 586 (<HOLDING>). Indeed, “[t]here is no single reasonable
holding that district court must conduct individualized assessment based on particular facts of each case recognizing that the district court must place on the record an individualized assessment based on the particular facts of the case before it and that the individualized assessment  must provide a rationale tailored to the particular ease at hand and be adequate to permit meaningful appellate review holding that while the gsr is a valuable starting point the sentencing judge must make an individualized assessment based on the facts presented recognizing that sentencing facts are based on the evidence and testimony presented at sentencing under a preponderance of the evidence standard recognizing that the district court must place on the record an individualized assessment based on the particular facts of the case before it and that the individualized assessment  must provide a rationale tailored to the particular case at hand and be adequate to permit meaningful appellate review