I. Whether, under Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(i)(1)(D), a district court's order for additional briefing on safety valve eligibility – which notes that the defendant was not assessed certain Guideline enhancements in the PSR to which the Government failed to object – constitutes "good cause" so as to allow the Government to make untimely objections to the PSR.

II. Whether a district court has an independent responsibility to correctly calculate the advisory Guideline range in which it is not "limited by the parties' arguments or the recommendations in the presentence report."

Whether a district court's order for additional briefing on safety valve eligibility constitutes good cause under Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(i)(1)(D) to allow the Government to make untimely objections to the presentence investigation report, and whether a district court has an independent responsibility to correctly calculate the advisory Guideline range independent of the parties' arguments