“[W]e will not substitute our own judgment for the district court’s on the question of what is sufficient to meet the § 3553(a) considerations in any particular case.” Id. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the sentence here. In weighing the Section 3553(a) factors, the district court discussed Garcia’s history and characteristics, noting that his prior cooperation, which apparently saved the lives of two government officials, was an “appropriate consideration.” Where, as here, the district court considered this fact in imposing sentence, we will not second guess the weight it accorded this factor, “as long as the sentence ultimately imposed is reasonable in light of all the circumstances presented.” United States v. Fernandez, 443 F.3d 19, 32 (2d Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>), abrogated on other grounds by Rita v. United
recognizing that many of the  3553a factors are already incorporated into any guidelines determination and the  3553a factors can themselves overlap recognizing that the weight to be afforded any given argument made pursuant to one of the section 3553a factors is a matter firmly committed to the discretion of the sentencing judge holding that a sentencing judge would commit a statutory error  if the judge failed to consider the applicable guidelines range  as well as the other factors listed in section 3553a 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 the jury is the judge of the weight and credibility given to witness testimony