United States v. Williams, 517 F.3d 801, 809 (5th Cir.2008))). 11 . See United States v. Smith, 417 F.3d 483, 491 (5th Cir.2005) (finding district court's explanation of its sentence "adequate”). 12 . See Gall, 552 U.S. at 49, 128 S.Ct. 586 (implying there is no "ascertainable method of assigning percentages to various justifications” for departing from the guidelines). 13 . Hernan n this point center on the district court's apparent grounding of its decision to depart in factors that it did not discuss in its written statement of reasons.”). 15 . See id. at 244-45 (noting that during the sentencing colloquy, the district court voiced concerns on which it appeared to rely, but which it never addressed in its written statement). 16 . See, e.g., Gall, 552 U.S. at 43-44, 53, 128 S.Ct. 586 (<HOLDING>); United States v. Rajwani, 476 F.3d 243, 251
holding that restitution is not a proper ground for departing downward from the guidelines range holding that a reviewing court must first ensure that the district court committed no significant procedural error holding district court committed no significant procedural error despite departing downward from the guideline range for multiple reasons without explaining the weight it was attributing to each reason 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 holding that after granting the governments motion for downward departure pursuant to both  3553e and  5k11 the district court did not err when it determined that the starting point for departing downward was the higher statutorily required minimum sentence and not the lower otherwise applicable guideline range