Whether the district court's utilization of the child pornography guideline in Section 2G2.2 to determine the sentence for a defendant whose primary offense conduct was child enticement was due deference by the court of appeals under an abuse of discretion standard, in spite of the acknowledged infirmities in the empirically unsupported guideline, and the fact that the guideline contravened Congress' statutory determination of the relative seriousness of the two offenses?

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Whether the district court’s utilization of the child pornography guideline in Section 2G2.2 to determine the sentence for a defendant whose primary offense conduct was child enticement was due deference by the court of appeals under an abuse of discretion standard, in spite of the acknowledged infirmities in the empirically unsupported guideline, and the fact that the guideline contravened Congress’ statutory determination of the relative seriousness of the two offenses? i