sentence based on Williams’s alleged intent to distribute crack cocaine to his girlfriend, Williams’s argument that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the district court improperly relied on that fact is meritless. D. Finally, Williams argues that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable because (a) the district court failed to recalculate the Guidelines ra roperly considered the short period of time between his release from state prison and his arrest in this case also lacks merit because, while the fact may have influenced Williams’s Guidelines range, it also impacts several of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, including his history and characteristics, the need to protect the public, the promotion of respect for the law, and the need to promote deterrence. Id. at 590 (<HOLDING>); United States v. Drummond, 255 Fed.Appx. 60,
holding that the defendants illegal reentry into the united states only a few months after being de ported for the third time justified a harsher sentence under several  3553a factors recognizing that many of the  3553a factors are already incorporated into any guidelines determination and the  3553a factors can themselves overlap holding that sentence is reasonable when the district court properly addresses sentencing factors of  3553a holding that the district court is not required to state on the record that it has explicitly considered each of the  3553a factors or to discuss each of the  3553a factors holding that nothing in booker or elsewhere requires the district court to state on the record that it has explicitly considered each of the  3553a factors or to discuss each of the  3553a factors