court committed both procedural and substantive error by inadequately explaining its decision to impose a consecutive sentence, treating the Sentencing Guidelines as mandatory, and giving insufficient weight to mitigation evidence presented at sentencing. After review, we affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a consecutive sentence, and the record does not demonstrate that the district court committed either procedural or substantive error during sentencing. The district court adequately explained its decision to impose a consecutive sentence, stating among other things that Baughman was responsible for “a considerable amount of drugs” and that “there is just way too much crime going on.” See United States v. Ellisor, 522 F.3d 1255, 1278 (11th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>). The record does not indicate that the
holding a court of appeals may apply a presumption of reasonableness to a district court sentence that reflects a proper application of the sentencing guidelines holding that to establish reasonableness of a sentence a district court need not explicitly discuss every  3553a factor on the record holding that the district court need not recite a laundry list of factors to demonstrate the reasonableness of its sentence holding that a court of appeals may apply a presumption of reasonableness to a district court sentence that reflects a proper application of the sentencing guidelines holding presumption of reasonableness exists but still noting that a district court must consider the  3553 factors