Shannon Parks appealed a federal sentence imposed after revocation of supervised release. He argued that the district court failed to explain adequately why it selected the sentence and failed to address the sentencing factors required by federal law. The Eleventh Circuit held that the sentencing court must state its reasons sufficiently to permit meaningful appellate review, including when it imposes a sentence after revocation. A general statement that the court had considered the record was not enough where the statute required an explanation for the chosen sentence. The court vacated Parks’s sentence and remanded for resentencing. Because the disposition rested on the inadequate explanation, the court did not reach the merits of Parks’s separate challenge under the general sentencing factors. The published opinion emphasized that sentencing transparency protects both the defendant and the public by making the basis for a sentence reviewable.