When conducting "closer review" of a sentencing decision that was based on the district
court's decision to vary from the United States Sentencing Guidelines due to a policy disagreement
with the Guidelines under Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85, 109 (2007), must an appellate
court ensure that the district court (1) considered the Sentencing Commission's pertinent policy
statements, as required by 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(5), before expressing disagreement with them, and
(2) fully explained its disagreements with the Commission on the record, as the Third, Fourth,
Seventh, and Eighth Circuit Courts of Appeals have done? Or does an appellate court fulfill its
obligation to conduct "closer review" when it determines that a district court altogether has failed
to consider a pertinent policy statement and rejects Guidelines policy sub silentio, but nonetheless
affirms the sentence, as the Ninth Circuit has done?

When conducting 'closer review' of a sentencing decision that was based on the district court's decision to vary from the United States Sentencing Guidelines due to a policy disagreement with the Guidelines under Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85, 109 (2007), must an appellate court ensure that the district court (1) considered the Sentencing Commission's pertinent policy statements, as required by 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(5), before expressing disagreement with them, and (2) fully explained its disagreements with the Commission on the record, as the Third, Fourth, Seventh, and Eighth Circuit Courts of Appeals have done? Or does an appellate court fulfill its obligation to conduct 'closer review' when it determines that a district court altogether has failed to consider a pertinent policy statement and rejects Guidelines policy sub silentio, but nonetheless affirms the sentence, as the Ninth Circuit has done?