occur at the sentencing hearing — based on the trial, the pre-sentence report, the exchanges of the parties concerning the report, and the preparation of mitigation evidence. Garden variety considerations of culpability, criminal history, likelihood of re-offense, seriousness of the crime, nature of the conduct and so forth should not generally come as a surprise to trial lawyers who have prepared for sentencing. Were a mechanical notice rule imposed, some judges would shy away from imposing non-guideline sentences that the parties had not proposed in advance, increasing the “gravitational pull” of the guidelines, United States v. Trujillo-Terrazas, 405 F.3d 814, 819 (10th Cir.2005), and compromising the greater freedom sought by Booker and Rita. See, e.g., Rita, 127 S.Ct. at 2465 (<HOLDING>). Alternatively, the judge would often have to
holding that a district judge does not enjoy the benefit of a legal presumption that the guidelines sentence should apply holding that a court of appeals may apply a presumption of reasonableness to a district court sentence that reflects a proper application of the sentencing guidelines holding that we may apply a presumption of reasonableness to a sentence within the guidelines range holding a court of appeals may apply a presumption of reasonableness to a district court sentence that reflects a proper application of the sentencing guidelines holding that agency decisions enjoy a presumption of correctness