In this case, the evidence that the district court actually considered Vonner’s various arguments is sketchy as best. See Richardson, 437 F.3d at 554. The only proof in the record of the district court’s consideration is the district court’s statement that “[w]ith respect to the sentence in this case, the Court has considered the nature and circumstances of the offense, the history and characteristics of the defendant, the advisory Guideline range, as well as the other factors listed in the 18 United States 3553(a).” This type of offhanded dismissal of a defendant’s claims provides mere lip service to the district court’s responsibility to carefully weigh all the facts and provide a defendant with a well-reasoned, well-thought-out sentencing decision. See McBride, 434 F.3d at 476 n. 3 (<HOLDING>) (emphasis added); Foreman, 436 F.3d at 644
holding that there must be sufficient evidence in the record to affirmatively demonstrate the courts consideration of the relevant section 3553a factors holding that only relevant factors must be considered 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 holding that it is sufficient for a court to acknowledge its consideration of the parties arguments and the 3553a factors 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