need to protect the public from further crimes by the defendant. This explanation is sufficient for purposes of § 3553(c)(1). We reject Mr. Ghertler’s arguments to the contrary. First, Mr. Ghertler is wrong that we should not consider the district court’s statements described above because they were made after the sentence was imposed and did not relate to the sentence selected. The record shows that, although the district court’s com ments followed the imposition of the sentence, those comments were clearly part of the court’s closing remarks regarding the propriety of the sentence. We have taken a holistic approach in evaluating the district court’s explanation of the sentence imposed. Our review is not limited to the district court’s closing remarks. See Parrado, 911 F.2d at 1573 (<HOLDING>); see also id. (citing with approval United
holding that district court adequately explained its reasons for imposing life sentence based on review of the transcript of the sentencing hearing taken together with the courts closing remarks holding government failed to meet it burden to show harmlessness of mandatory application of the guidelines where transcript of sentencing hearing indicated district court would have imposed shorter sentence under advisory sentencing scheme holding that in order to aid the appellate review of whether an abuse of discretion has occurred at sentencing the trial court is required to articulate on the record reasons for imposing a particular sentence holding that plain error review is used for unpreserved challenges to the method by which the district court arrived at a sentence including arguments that the sentencing court failed to explain adequately the sentence imposed under the statutory factors in  3553a holding that the trial court improperly relied on a subsequent charge in sentencing where the trial court stated she was imposing the sentence based on the fact that you reoffended among other reasons