1. Whether a district court that imposes supervised release on a deportable offender must specifically tie it to a need for deterrence or protection, as the Third, Sixth, and Tenth Circuits hold; whether that provision is "hortatory" with no legal force, as the Fifth and Eighth Circuits hold; or whether Guidelines § 5D1.1(c) requires findings that can be satisfied by articulated support for the broader sentence, as the Second, Fourth and Ninth Circuits seem to hold.

2. Whether a presumption of reasonableness attends a sentence within a range established by Guidelines § 2L1.2, as amended in 2016, despite (i) evidence that the ranges established by the former § 2L1.2 seldom controlled sentences actually imposed on reentry offenders and (ii) suggestions of a longstanding and significant geographic disparity in reentry sentences that Guideline does not address.

3. Whether a district court reversibly errs at sentencing by pronouncing only that its sentence is "based on the Sentencing Reform Act of '84 and considering the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3553."

Whether a district court that imposes supervised release on a deportable offender must specifically tie it to a need for deterrence or protection