Whether a sentence that lacks reliability because of unjust procedures satisfies the 'interest of justice' prong of 18 U.S.C. §3583(e)(1)

QUESTION PRESENTED A criminal sentence is a package of sanctions that the district court utilizes to effectuate its sentencing intent, but a district court’s original sentencing intent may be undermined by altering one portion of the calculus. See Pepper v. United States, 131 S.Ct. 1229, 1251 (2011). If a district court cannot properly determine whether, considering all sentencing factors, including the correct Guidelines range, a sentence is “sufficient, but not greater than necessary,” 18 U.S.C. §3553(a), the resulting sentence would not bear the reliability that would support a “presumption of reasonableness” on review. Sée Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). And regardless of its ultimate reasonableness, a sentence that lacks reliability because of unjust procedures may well undermine public perception of the proceedings. See RosalesMireles v. United States, 138 S.Ct. 1897, 1903 (2018). The question presented is whether, and to what extent, a sentence that lacks reliability because of unjust procedures satisfies the “interest of justice” prong of 18 U.S.C. §3583(e)(1).