Is a sentence imposed under the methamphetamine sentencing guideline–a guideline crafted without benefit of Sentencing Commission expertise or empirical basis–entitled to a presumption of reasonableness? The Fifth Circuit concluded as much. But its basis for doing so–that a guideline enjoys a presumption of reasonableness regardless of its lack of empirical basis or its promulgation without benefit of Sentencing Commission expertise–conflicts with the Second Circuit's approach to review of sentences under such a guideline.

Is a sentence imposed under the methamphetamine sentencing guideline entitled to a presumption of reasonableness?