factors: (1) that her criminal history category of VI purportedly over-represents the seriousness of her six prior felony convictions, see U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3(b); and (2) extraordinary family circumstances, see U.S.S.G. § 5H1.6. Even assuming that Reid adequately presented these grounds for sentencing consideration to the district court, we identify no procedural error. Nothing in the record either indicates that the district court misapprehended the scope of its sentencing discretion after United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 261-62, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), or defeats the “strong presumption” that the district court exercised its discretion based on an assessment of the totality of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, United States v. Fernandez, 443 F.3d 19, 33 (2d Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). The district court stated that it took into
holding presumption not defeated by absence of explicit discussion of defendants specific arguments recognizing presumption holding without extended discussion that the presumption shifts only the burden of production holding that an attorneys arguments are not evidence recognizing this presumption