decisions.” United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d at 189 (emphas 284, 295 (affirming reliance on lack of remorse as aggravating factor supporting above Guidelines sentence even where defendant was denied acceptance-of-responsibility credit in calculating Guidelines range). The district court also acted within its discretion in taking account of the fact that, at the same time Kalume was presenting herself to one government agency as married to secure an immigration benefit (for Jaiteh), she was presenting herself to other government agencies as single to secure monetary benefits. See 18 U.S.C. § 3661 (stating that no limit shall be placed on information concerning background, character, and conduct of defendant for purpose of imposing sentence); United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d at 191 (<HOLDING>). The district court’s statements at sentencing
recognizing appellate courts discretion to consider issues raised in the district court but not resolved there recognizing broad discretion afforded by  3661 to consider all but invidious considerations recognizing the aljs broad discretion to correct mistakes in the record recognizing that the district court is afforded broad discretion in ruling on motions for relief from judgment holding that district courts discretion is extremely broad