emphasized West’s substance abuse problems, and the court, after acknowledging West had a substance abuse problem, ordered that he participate in a substance abuse program during incarceration as part of his sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(D). West contends his sentence was substantively unreasonable primarily because it was imposed at the statutory maximum for the DUI offense. However, he cites no binding authority to support his argument that a sentence at the statutory maximum must be “strictly construed.” Regardless of whether the sentence is at the statutory maximum, it will be upheld on review as long as the ultimate sentence is a reasonable one. See, e.g., United States v. Eldick, 443 F.3d 783, 790 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 251, 166 L.Ed.2d 196 (2006) (<HOLDING>). Id. Because the district court conducted an
holding that courts are duty bound to correct sentences violating the trial courts statutory authority to issue consecutive sentences under indiana code section 355012 holding that appellants two eightyear consecutive sentences for rape because they were each within the tenyear statutory range for a single offense did not violate apprendi holding sentences need only be below the statutory maximum holding the courts consecutive sentences at the statutory maximum on each count were reasonable because of the gravity of the offense holding that consecutive sentences were warranted because of the multiple separate and distinct criminal acts