a rationale tailored to the particular ease at hand and be adequate to permit appellate review. United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 825, 328-29 (4th Cir.2009). Thus, a recitation of the § 3553 factors and purposes is insufficient. Likewise, a conclusory statement that a specific sentence is the proper one does not satisfy the district court’s responsibilities. Id. Initially, the district court could not have granted a variance sentence below the Guidelines range established after granting the Government’s motion for a downward departure. See United States v. Hood, 556 F.3d 226, 234 n. 2 (4th Cir.2009), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 321, 175 L.Ed.2d 212 (2009); United States v. A.B., 529 F.3d 1275, 1285 (10th Cir.2008), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 129 S.Ct. 440, 172 L.Ed.2d 317 (2008) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Williams, 474 F.3d 1130,
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 holding that district court did not have authority to depart any further below the statutory minimum after granting the  3553e motion and therefore need not consider the  3553a factors holding that a circuit court has no jurisdiction to review a district courts discretionary decision not to depart downward from the guidelines but would have jurisdiction if the district court based its decision on the belief that it did not have the authority to depart holding that district court may consider 18 usc  3553a 2012 factors when deciding the extent of a sentence reduction after granting a rule 35b motion holding that a sentencing court may not depart below a statutory minimum on any ground other than substantial assistance to criminal investigation