Guidelines range is but one such factor. We cannot isolate possible sentencing disparity to the exclusion of all the other § 3553(a) factors.” Id. (emphasis in original). Under the mandatory Guidelines scheme, district courts were prohibited from considering a defendant’s characteristics in “any manner other than as a basis for a Guidelines departure.” United States v. Ryder, 414 F.3d 908, 920 (8th Cir.2005). Now, § 3553(a) requires a district court to consider a defendant’s characteristics independent of the guidelines. Id. (“Now coupled with the requirements in § 3553(a) ... the district court would be well within its discretion to ... consider ... ages and medical conditions as non-Guidelines factors on remand”); see also United States v. Lamoreaux, 422 F.3d 750, 756 (8th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). Indeed, “[w]e believe it would seriously
holding the district court properly considered nonguidelines sentencing factors such as prior military service wifes pregnancy the need to care for other children and entrepreneurial spirit holding that sentence is reasonable when the district court properly addresses sentencing factors of  3553a holding that the district court properly considered the moisture content in the calculation of the weight of the marijuana for sentencing purposes holding that the trial court properly considered the defendants subsequent arrests for two other robberies while on bond when sentencing the defendant holding that there is no nonconstitutional error under booker where the district court sentencing in the alternative sufficiently considered the guidelines as well as the other factors listed in  3553a