Whether the First Circuit Court of Appeals erred in finding that the defendant's sentence was procedurally and substantively reasonable under 18 USC § 3553(a) and (c)(1) when the district court's explanation was inadequate and failed to properly consider the sentencing factors

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The First Circuit Court of Appeals held pursuant to 1 Cir. R. 27.0( c), that the sentence defendant Robert McKenna received was both procedurally and substantively reasonable because the Maine District Court had “linked appellant’s extensive 30-year criminal history to the goals of sentencing, namely, deterrence and protection of the public from further criminal conduct on the part of the appellant.” United States v. McKenna, No. 20-2178, (Sept. 28, 2022, 1* Cir. 2022) (“McKenna”). The First Circuit reasoned that the Maine District Court’s explanation was “adequate for purposes of [18 USC] § 3553( c)(1),” and that the district “court sufficiently considered the 18 USC § 3553(a) factors.” Id. Additionally, the First Circuit concluded that the district court had not abused its discretion “because the district court provided a ‘plausible sentencing rationale and reached a defensible result” by merely stating a need “to protect the public from the defendant.” Id. citing United States v. Gomera-Rodriguez, 952 F.3d 15, 20 (1* Cir. 2020). See