Does a presumption of vindictiveness apply unless a district court articulates its reasons for increasing the sentence?

We also disagree with Valdez-Lopez's suggestion that a presumption of vindictiveness applies unless a district court imposing a higher sentence at resentencing articulates "reasons for increasing the sentence." Although a court must give reasons for whatever sentence it selects, it need not specifically justify a deviation-whether upward or downward-from any sentence that might have been imposed before. By way of analogy, an administrative agency adopting a new policy must "show that there are good reasons for the new policy," but that does not mean that it must "demonstrate to a court's satisfaction that the reasons for the new policy are better than the reasons for the old one." FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502, 515 (2009). The same principle applies here.