arguments from § 3553 “for a sentence different than the one ultimately imposed,” the party sufficiently “preserves its claim.” Id. at 578. However, we review unpreserved non-structural sentencing errors for plain error. Id. at 576-77. If, and only if, we find the sentence procedurally reasonable can we consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed. United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir.2009). Because Lackard requested a sentence different than the one ultimately imposed by the district court, we review his sentence for abuse of discretion. King, 673 F.3d at 283. Lackard’s arguments to the contrary, we discern no procedural sentencing error by the district court. Although Lackard asserts that the district court erred when it denied his r Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>). Although Lackard also asserts that the
holding that the district courts refusal to grant a downward departure was discretionary and not because it believed it lacked the authority to depart where the court assessed the facts of the case and concluded that the departure requested does not seem  to have a basis holding that we may not review a district courts refusal to grant a downward departure unless the court mistakenly believed that it lacked the authority to grant such a departure holding that this court laeks the authority to review a sentencing courts denial of a downward departure unless the court failed to understand its authority to do so holding that this court does not review decisions of a district court not to depart downward unless the record reflects that the district court was not aware of or did not understand its discretion to make such a departure holding that the district courts denial of a downward departure was an exercise of discretion and therefore not reviewable