Whether the Sixth Amendment is violated when courts impose sentences that, but for a judge-found fact, would be reversed for substantive unreasonableness

QUESTION PRESENTED In United States v. Jones, 574 U.S. 948 (2014), three justices urged the Court to grant certiorari to answer the question left open in Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 353 (2007): “whether the Sixth Amendment is violated when courts impose sentences that, but for a judge-found fact, would be reversed for substantive unreasonableness.” Id. at 949 (J., Scalia, J., Thomas, J., Ginsburg, dissenting from the denial of certiorari). The question presented here is whether petitioner’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights were violated when the district court imposed a 720-month sentence that relied on guideline enhancements for bodily injury and use of a firearm that were based on facts that were not found by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. i