The district court, on remand for resentencing after failing or iginally to permit
allocution by petitioner, reimposed the original sentence witho ut discussion or
acknowledgment of changed circum stances, including the defendan t's remorse that
the government concluded was hear tfelt, or of any of the valid grounds asserted,
without government opposition, for a sentence below the guideli ne range. The
Eleventh Circuit held that nothing more is required at sentenci ng than a statement by
the sentencing judge to the effect that 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)'s s entencing factors were
considered.

In order to afford meaningful appellate review and to insure co nstitutional
application of the advisory guidelines, should this Court requi re the sentencing judge
to address relevant sentencing factors and provide a reasoned b asis for discounting
valid grounds for variance?

Should the sentencing judge be required to address relevant sentencing factors and provide a reasoned basis for discounting valid grounds for variance?