Whether sentencing judges must explain why they have rejected a nonfrivolous argument made by a defendant in favor of a lower sentence

QUESTION PRESENTED The Court has observed that “where a party presents nonfrivolous reasons for imposing a different sentence, the judge will normally go further and explain why he has rejected those arguments.” Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 339 (2007). This case presents the question whether sentencing judges must do what judges “normally” do by explaining why they have rejected a nonfrivolous argument made by a defendant in favor of a lower sentence.