When can a court of appeals reverse a below-guideline sentence based on its own view that a different, more severe sentence is appropriate?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED In United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 260-262 (2005), this Court invalidated both 18 U.S.C. § 3553(b)(1), which made the Sentencing Guidelines mandatory, and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(e), which directed appellate courts to apply a de novo standard of review to departures from the Guidelines. Consequently, the Guidelines are now advisory and appellate review is limited to “reasonableness.” Booker and its progeny have “made it pellucidly clear that the familiar abuse-of-discretion standard of review now applies to appellate review of sentencing decisions.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46 (2007). Unfortunately, there remains a jurisprudential sentencing tension between district courts and appellate courts even though this Court has explained the significance of affording a trial judge the discretion and due deference that is necessary and required to meet and fulfill the stated purposes of federal sentencing. Since Booker, statistics reveal that circuit courts are far more likely to reverse a district court’s below-guideline sentence rather than an above-guideline sentence, often discounting to irrelevance a district court’s judgment that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, on a whole, justify the extent of a downward variance. As such, the questions presented by this case are: (1) When a district court commits no procedural error at sentencing — e.g., correctly calculates the guidelines, considers all statutory sentencing factors, and provides adequate explanation for the chosen sentence — does a court of appeals violate Gall’s limited abuse-ofdiscretion review when it reverses a below-guideline sentence based on its own that a different, more severe sentence is appropriate; and ; (2) Given the scope and permission of 18 U.S.C. § 3661, whether a district court is prohibited from considering collateral consequences of a conviction when adjudging the most appropriate sentence that is sufficient, but no greater than necessary, to mete out and satisfy the calls and mandates of federal sentencing, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). ii PROCEEDINGS IN FEDERAL TRIAL AND APPELLATE COURTS DIRECTLY RELATED TO THIS CASE Petitioner, Nicole R. Bramwell, was the criminal defendant in the district court and the appellant as well as the cross-appellee in the court of appeals. Respondent, the United States of America, was the prosecutor and plaintiff in the district court and the appellee and cross-appellant in the court of appeals. The related cases include the following: United States District Court (M.D. Fla. (Orlando Division)): United States v. Nicole R. Bramwell, Case No. United States Court of Appeals (11th Cir.): United States v. Nicole R. Bramwell, 28 F.4th 180 (11th 2022). ili