health did not warrant a variance. The record, however, does not support this claim. As for Byars’s claim that he was old, the district court simply disagreed and told Byars that he was “not that old.” Doc. 45 (Sent. Hr’g Tr. (7/21/09) at 12). Furthermore, it is clear from the record that the distl'iet court considered Byars’s poor health, cited Byars’s need for medical treatment as one of its rationales for the sentence it chose, and recommended that Byars receive a medical evaluation once in custody. When a district court’s sentence is crafted in such a way that it explicitly accommodates factors to which the defendant has drawn attention, it is difficult to claim that the district court failed to respond to those factors. See United States v. Liou, 491 F.3d 334, 340 (6th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). Byars further argues that the district court
holding that the district court did not commit plain error in admitting physical evidence of the defendants prior drug arrest in addition to the fact of the arrest itself when the evidence was relevant under rule 404b and the district court gave a limiting instruction holding that a district court should decide a motion for expedited discovery on the entirety of the record to date and the reasonableness of the request in light of all the surrounding circumstances unless the circumstances are such that the notaro factors apply holding that district court adequately responded to the defendants emphasis on his family circumstances when the district court gave the defendant sixty days to selfreport in order to accommodate those circumstances holding that an exception to the general rule applied when counsel asked the court whether its ruling was the final order of the court and the court responded yes recognizing that an order denying a motion to modify a family court order where the motion is based on changed factual or legal circumstances is appealable as a special order after final judgment