What is the test for review for abuse of discretion?

We review a district court's sentence for procedural and substantive reasonableness, which amounts to review for abuse of discretion. United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180, 187 (2d Cir. 2008) (en banc). "A district court commits procedural error where it fails to calculate the Guidelines range . . . , makes a mistake in its Guidelines calculation, or treats the Guidelines as mandatory." Id. at 190. It also errs procedurally if it does not consider the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a), rests its sentence on a clearly erroneous finding of fact, or fails to adequately explain its chosen sentence. Id.

A sentence is substantively unreasonable if it "cannot be located within the range of permissible decisions." Id. at

Page 3

189. "[O]nly those sentences that are so 'shockingly high, shockingly low, or otherwise unsupportable as a matter of law' that allowing them to stand would 'damage the administration of justice'" are substantively unreasonable. United States v. Broxmeyer, 699 F.3d 265, 289 (2d Cir. 2012) (quoting United States v. Rigas, 583 F.3d 108, 123 (2d Cir. 2009)).