Whether an explanation inconsistent with Rule 32(i)(3)(B) can inoculate an otherwise unreasonable sentence from appellate review

QUESTION PRESENTED At sentencing, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(i)(3)(B) gives a district court two options for addressing any “controverted matter”: “rule on the dispute or determine that a ruling is unnecessary either because the matter will not affect sentencing, or because the court will not consider the matter in sentencing.” Here, the district court chose to rule on a disputed matter: it held Petitioner responsible for someone else’s independent decision to commit suicide. The Fifth Circuit agreed with Petitioner that this was a substantively unreasonable and improper consideration for purposes of sentencing. But the Fifth Circuit held that the error was harmless. The question presented is whether an explanation inconsistent with Rule 32()(8)(B) can inoculate an otherwise unreasonable sentence from appellate review. i