LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS: 1) WAS THE DISTRICT COURT'S CHOICE OF WITHIN-GUIDELINES SENTENCE REASONABLE? 2) IN MAKING THAT DETERMINATION, IS IT CONSISTENT WITH UNITED STATES V. BOOKER, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), TO ACCORD A PRESUMPTION OF REASONABLENESS TO WITHIN-GUIDELINES SENTENCES? 3) IF SO, CAN THAT PRESUMPTION JUSTIFY A SENTENCE IMPOSED WITHOUT AN EXPLICIT ANALYSIS BY THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE 18 U.S.C. §3553(a) FACTORS AND ANY OTHER FACTORS THAT MIGHT JUSTIFY A LESSER SENTENCE?Question Presented:
Whether the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals appellate review for "unreasonableness" has preserved de facto mandatory Guidelines, contrary this Court's ruling in United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), by discouraging district courts from sentencing outside of the recommended guidelines ranges?Question:
1) Does the Supreme Court's decision in U.S. v. Booker allow courts to accord a presumption of reasonableness to sentences that fall within the Federal Sentencing Guidelines? 2) If so, may a court presume a within- Guidelines sentence reasonable without an explicit analysis of the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors that might justify a lesser sentence?