(1) When a district court commits no procedural error at sentencing – e.g., correctly calculates the guidelines, considers all statutory sentencing factors, and provides adequate explanation for the chosen sentence – does a court of appeals violate Gall's limited abuse-of-discretion review when it reverses a below-guideline sentence based on its own appellate-reweighing that a different, more severe sentence is appropriate; and

(2) Given the scope and permission of 18 U.S.C. § 3661, whether a district court is prohibited from considering collateral consequences of a conviction when adjudging the most appropriate sentence that is sufficient, but no greater than necessary, to mete out and satisfy the calls and mandates of federal sentencing, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

When can a court of appeals reverse a below-guideline sentence based on its own view that a different, more severe sentence is appropriate?