F.3d 518, 527 (2d Cir.2005). Although Patterson argues that it “was certainly possible” for his California conduct not to have been fraudulent, Appellant’s Br. at 25, that possibility, which appears remote, did not foreclose the district court’s conclusion of probable relevant criminality. See United States v. MacPherson, 424 F.3d at 190. Finally, the district court’s observation that it “must give [the Guidelines] some heavy weight,” Sentencing Tr. at 30 (Jan. 3, 2007), when reviewed in the context of the full sentencing transcript, raises no concern as to the district court’s proper understanding of its obligation to make an “individualized assessment” of the appropriate sentence consistent with the factors outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Gall v. United States, 128 S.Ct. at 596-97 (<HOLDING>). The district court explicitly acknowledged
holding a court of appeals may apply a presumption of reasonableness to a district court sentence that reflects a proper application of the sentencing guidelines holding that a court of appeals may apply a presumption of reasonableness to a district court sentence that reflects a proper application of the sentencing guidelines holding that we may apply a presumption of reasonableness to a sentence within the guidelines range holding that district court may not presume reasonableness of guidelines sentencing range in particular case holding that a court of appeals may presume reasonable a district courts proper application of the sentencing guidelines