With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". United States v. Williams, 517 F.3d 801, 809 (5th Cir.2008))). 11 . See United States v. Smith, 417 F.3d 483, 491 (5th Cir.2005) (finding district court's explanation of its sentence "adequate”). 12 . See Gall, 552 U.S. at 49, 128 S.Ct. 586 (implying there is no "ascertainable method of assigning percentages to various justifications” for departing from the guidelines). 13 . Hernan n this point center on the district court's apparent grounding of its decision to depart in factors that it did not discuss in its written statement of reasons.”). 15 . See id. at 244-45 (noting that during the sentencing colloquy, the district court voiced concerns on which it appeared to rely, but which it never addressed in its written statement). 16 . See, e.g., Gall, 552 U.S. at 43-44, 53, 128 S.Ct. 586 (<HOLDING>); United States v. Rajwani, 476 F.3d 243, 251

A: holding that a reviewing court must first ensure that the district court committed no significant procedural error
B: holding that restitution is not a proper ground for departing downward from the guidelines range
C: holding district court committed no significant procedural error despite departing downward from the guideline range for multiple reasons without explaining the weight it was attributing to each reason
D: holding that the district court committed procedural error by failing to provide an indication of what facts it relied on to make a significant variance from the advisory guidelines range
C.