(1) Currently, the circuits are split in defining the role of appellate courts in conducting a meaningful substantive reasonableness review of a Defendant's sentence given the substantial deference afforded to within Guidelines sentences.

Where an applicable guideline fails to reflect sound judgment, is it acceptable for appellate courts to permit that guideline to anchor the sentencing at the expense of other sentencing objectives?

(2) Section 2A2.2 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines that governs sentencing for aggravated assault offenses fails to distinguish between intentional and reckless conduct.

Does this guideline's lack of adjustment for reckless crimes create disproportionate sentencing in contravention of Congress's goal of proportional sentencing?

Does the substantial deference afforded to within-Guidelines sentences permit appellate courts to permit a flawed Guideline to anchor the sentencing at the expense of other sentencing objectives?