and O’Connor, Kennedy, and Ginsburg, JJ.) (“The district courts, while not bound to apply the Guidelines, must consult those Guidelines and take them into account when-sentencing.”); id. at 764 (“Without the ‘mandatory’ provision, the [Sentencing Reform Act] nonetheless requires judges to take account of the Guidelines together with other sentencing goals.”). The Supreme Court provides no guidance regarding precisely what level of consideration district courts must give the Guidelines in order to arrive at a reasonable sentence. In addition, the First Circuit has not yet had the occasion to address this question. Various district courts have opined on the issue and, predictably, have developed differing approaches. Compare United States v. Clay, 2005 WL 1076243, at *1 (E.D.Tenn.2005) (<HOLDING>), United States v. Wilson, 350 F.Supp.2d 910,
holding that guidelines should be given substantial weight because they provide a presumptively reasonable sentence holding guidelines to be only advisory holding that the cocaine guidelines  are advisory only holding that the pennsylvania sentencing guidelines are purely advisory in nature holding that guidelines although advisory and only one factor among others to be considered in arriving at a reasonable sentence are entitled to substantial weight in the sentencing decision