Whether the District Court accorded the advisory sentencing guidelines a presumption of reasonableness

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Under 18 U.S.C. § 3553 the District Courts are charged to consider a number of factors when crafting a sentence, with the ultimate goal of imposing a sentence that is “sufficient, but not greater than necessary” to realize the objectives at section 35538(a)(2). Among the factors a sentencing court must consider are the sentencing guidelines promulgated by the United States Sentencing Commission. § 3553(a)(4). This Court’s decision in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) rendered the previously mandatory sentencing guidelines advisory. Its later decision in Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) held that District Courts may not accord the sentencing ranges recommended by the guidelines a presumption of reasonableness. In this case, the United States Probation Office initially miscalculated petitioner’s sentencing guideline imprisonment range as 168 to 210 months, a range that overlapped with the 135 to 168-month range in his plea agreement with the Government. Subsequently, Probation corrected its calculation, arriving at a guideline i imprisonment range of 235 to 293 months. It was undisputed below that the District Court, fully aware of the corrected guideline range and the pertinent facts of petitioner’s case, repeatedly indicated that it would accept an agreed-upon sentence of 168 months, pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C). When no such agreement materialized, the District Court sentenced petitioner to 240 months of imprisonment. The question presented by this case is: Whether the District Court, contrary to precedents of this Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, accorded the advisory sentencing guidelines range a presumption of reasonableness? il