factors,” the resulting sentence is procedurally reasonable. Geiner, 498 F.3d at 1114. As long as the court takes into account all of the relevant considerations, the order in which it does so is unimportant. We do not suggest that a heartland comparison is sufficient, by itself, to satisfy the district court’s responsibility to weigh all the relevant factors. When the Guidelines were mandatory, a court could not depart from the recommended range unless the case was exceptional. If the court determined that the case was within the heartland, then its analysis was effectively over. Now that the Sentencing Guidelines are only advisory, there are no mandatory requirements as to when a district court may sentence a defendant to an above- or below-Guidelines sentence. Gall, 128 S.Ct. at 595 (<HOLDING>) Even in routine, heartland cases, the district
holding that sentence within guidelines range enjoys a presumption of reasonableness holding sentencing courts decision to impose a sentence six years longer than advisory guidelines range was reasonable because district court employed  3553based reasoning to justify the variance holding that we may apply a presumption of reasonableness to a sentence within the guidelines range holding that requiring extraordinary circumstances to justify a variance comes too close to creating an impermissible presumption of unreasonableness for sentences outside the guidelines range holding that the district court committed procedural error by failing to provide an indication of what facts it relied on to make a significant variance from the advisory guidelines range