Roger Lardrell McCullough challenged his federal conviction and sentence, arguing that the district court relied on an impermissible factor and gave excessive weight to post-sentencing circumstances after an earlier sentence had been vacated and remanded. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed. The court held that the district court correctly applied the advisory sentencing framework, considered the relevant statutory factors, and did not commit a clear error of judgment in weighing the record. McCullough’s arguments about state-law theories and the use of post-sentencing rehabilitation either were waived or did not show that the federal sentence was substantively unreasonable. The judgment of conviction and sentence remained intact.