Whether a sentence imposed after a district court states it is not the proper forum for addressing flawed Guidelines, and essentially treating Sentencing Guidelines as mandatory, in violation of this Court's decisions in Kimbrough and Booker, is unreasonable

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW In Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (2007), this Court held that a district court had the authority, at sentencing, to reject the advice of the Sentencing Guidelines if the district court had policy disagreements with the construction of the Guideline that provided that advice. In the wake of Kimbrough, district courts throughout the United States have used that authority to disregard the advice of the Sentencing Guidelines related to the disparate treatment of pure methamphetamine (also called “ice”) and methamphetamine mixtures. In this case, Petitioner argued that the district court should do the same and impose a variance sentence below that called for by the Guidelines. The district court declined to do so, not because it concluded Bryant’s argument lacked merit but because it concluded that courts that had accepted that argument were “basically arbitrarily changing what the guidelines are” and “if the perceived unfairness is to be corrected, it’s up to Congress and the Sentencing Commission to do so.” The issue presented in this Petition is whether a sentence imposed on such a basis, and essentially treating Sentencing Guidelines as mandatory, in violation of this Court’s decisions in Kimbrough and United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), is unreasonable. -1 II.