Gobert

MEMORANDUM **

Lorin Gobert challenges his sentence following his guilty plea for involuntary manslaughter. He argues that the district court failed adequately to consider certain sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a), *630 thus violating the requirements of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 , 125 S.Ct. 738 , 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(i)(3).

The district court did not violate Booker in crafting Gobert’s sentence. Booker does not require district courts significantly to analyze or even mention every § 3553(a) factor. See United States v. Knows His Gun, 438 F.3d 913, 918 (9th Cir.2006) (“This [Booker ] requirement does not necessitate a specific articulation of each factor separately ... ”). Rather, the district court must provide “specific reasons for [its] sentencing decisions, such that the record on appeal demonstrates explicit or implicit consideration” of the § 3553(a) sentencing factors. United States v. Mohamed, 459 F.3d 979, 985 (9th Cir.2006).

The district court substantially discussed several of the § 3553(a) factors. The court provided adequate “specific reasons” to justify Gobert’s sentence. The district judge recounted…