Whether the holding in Holguin-Hernandez that a defendant's argument in the district court for a lower sentence preserves appellate review of the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed should be extended to provide that an argument for a lower sentence also preserves review of a claim that the district court's reasons for the sentence are inadequate

Questions Presented 1. This Court in Holguin-Hernandez recently held that a defendant’s argument in the district court for a lower sentence preserves appellate review to the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed. This Court has yet to address whether that holding applies to procedurally unreasonable sentences, such as in this case, where the district court offered no reasons for rejecting a defendant’s comprehensive request for a below-guidelines sentence. Given that a sentencing court is obligated not only to provide a substantively reasonable sentence but also to provide adequate reasons for the sentence, should the logic of holding be extended to provide that an argument for a lower sentence preserves review ofa claim that the district court’s reasons for sentence are inadequate? 2. There is a deep split in the circuits regarding whether the career-offender guideline applies to inchoate drug offenses. Given the dramatic effect that the application of that guideline can have on a defendant’s sentence (as illustrated by his case), this circuit split has and will continue to generate vastly disparate sentences among similarly situated defendants. Should this Court grant certiorari to resolve this important federal question and heal the jurisprudential divide? -i