to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586. After we determine that the district court’s sentencing decision is procedurally sound, we then review the substantive reasonableness of the sentence for abuse of discretion. Id. A district court’s unjustified reliance on a single factor “may be a symptom of an unreasonable sentence.” United States v. Pugh, 515 F.3d 1179, 1191 (11th Cir.2008). But significant reliance on a single factor does not necessarily make the sentence unreasonable. Id. at 1192; see Gall, 552 U.S. at 56-57, 128 S.Ct. 586 (<HOLDING>). We have held that “[t]he weight to be
holding that trial court did not commit error when it allowed state to reopen evidence to establish venue holding that a district court did not commit reversible error because it attached great weight to one factor holding that a trial court does not commit plain error unless the error is clear under current law holding that trial court did not commit reversible error when it submitted admissibility of evidence question to jury because the trial court had independently decided the question holding the trial judge did not commit reversible error through the chosen method of remedying the batson violation