“the kinds of sentences available”). Section 3553(a)(1) states the court shall consider “the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant.” Here, the court stated a criminal history category of V, which it characterized as a “pretty high level,” adequately accounted for Williams’ past crimes. The court disagreed with a “mechanistic application” of the Guidelines in Williams’ case. See id. § 3553(a)(2), (3). Moreover, the court noted giving Williams a longer sentence would not promote respect for the law. See id. § 3553(a)(2). Additionally, Williams’ final sentence is 2-1/2 years longer than the 5-year mandatory statutory minimum and nearly 1/5 of the 40-year statutory maximum. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B)(iii); Winingear, 422 F.3d at 1246 (<HOLDING>). This is not a case where the district court
holding that a defendants sentence was reasonable in part because it was well below the statutory maximum recognizing a claim that the sentence exceeded the statutory maximum holding that the sentence was reasonable in part because it was well below the statutory maximum holding a sentence 110 the length of the 20year statutory maximum sentence was reasonable holding that a sentence imposed for a violation of supervised release will be upheld where 1 the district court considered the applicable policy statements 2 the sentence is within the statutory maximum and 3 the sentence is reasonable