Millegan

facts, we do not recount them here. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

We affirm.

“The district court’s duty to consider the § 3553(a) factors necessarily entails

a duty to provide a sufficient explanation of the sentencing decision to permit

meaningful appellate review.” United States v. Trujillo, 713 F.3d 1003, 1009 (9th

Cir. 2013). Even if the district court abused its discretion by not adequately

explaining its rejection of Millegan’s arguments, any error was harmless. See

United States v. Cruz-Gramajo, 570 F.3d 1162, 1167 (9th Cir. 2009). The record

shows the district court considered the parties’ arguments, believed that the

original 51-month sentence was appropriate in light of Millegan’s conduct

(including during the pendency of his case), and found that his individual

circumstances did not show a decreased likelihood of recidivism. See Chavez-

Meza v. United States, 585 U.S. 109, 120 (2018).

AFFIRMED.

24-7441