What is the test for establishing that a sentence imposed by a federal district court is too lenient?

"Our review of criminal sentences includes both procedural and substantive components and amounts to review for abuse of discretion." United States v. McIntosh, 753 F.3d 388, 393-94 (2d Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). Erskine challenges only the substantive reasonableness of her incarcerative sentence. "We will set aside a district court's substantive determination as to an appropriate sentence only in exceptional cases where the trial court's decision cannot be located within the range of permissible decisions." Id. at 394 (internal quotation marks and emphasis omitted). "In reviewing the substantive reasonableness of a sentence, we take into account the totality of the circumstances, giving due deference to the sentencing judge's exercise of discretion, and bearing in mind the institutional advantages of district courts." United States v. Young, 811 F.3d 592, 598-99 (2d Cir. 2016). "In sum, [substantive reasonableness review] provide[s] a backstop for those few cases that, although procedurally correct, would nonetheless damage the administration of justice because the sentence imposed was shockingly high, shockingly low, or otherwise unsupportable as a matter of law." United States v. Rigas, 583 F.3d 108, 123 (2d Cir. 2009).

Erskine argues that the district court erred in imposing a fifteen month sentence of imprisonment because the sentence was "greater than necessary[] to accomplish the goals of sentencing" and thus ran afoul of the federal sentencing statute's overarching command. Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85, 101 (2007) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)).