what the right sentence — whether within, above or below the Guidelines — ought to be.”). That is precisely what the district court did here. The district court did not rely on the mere existence of the prior conviction in selecting the sentence, but rather considered the dangerous nature of the prior offense, the efficacy of the prior sentence, the risk posed by Sanbria-Bueno, and the goals of sentencing in varying upward. The district court thus concluded that the appropriate sentence for illegal reentry would be a few months more than the high end of the Guidelines range to run consecutive to the supervised release violation. Other courts have permitted similar sentences in appropriate circumstances. See, e.g., United States v. Rivera-Santana, 668 F.3d 95, 101-02 (4th Cir.2012) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Martinez-Carmona, 415
holding harmless any error in departing upward under ussg  4a13 where district court alternatively imposed reasonable sentence as an upward variance holding district court did not impermissibly engage in triple or quadruplecounting when it relied on prior convictions to determine that the sixteenlevel enhancement applied in calculating the criminal history category in departing upward and in varying upward holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing an upward variance after finding that the defendants criminal history category of i understated the seriousness of his criminal history holding district court did not impermissibly engage in triplecounting when it relied on prior convictions to calculate criminal history category enhance the offense level and impose an upward variance holding that a district court may depart upward based upon based criminal conduct when such conduct is not included in the computation of criminal history category