good sense”). Ronald J. Allen and Ethan A. Hastert, From Winship to Apprendi to Booker: Constitutional Command or Constitutional Blunder?, 58 Stan. L.Rev. 195, 198 (2005). Professor Klein finds that both the opinion for the "merits majority” and the opinion for the "remedial majority” in Booker “lack cohesion” and that the latter is "inexplicable on its face.” Susan R. Klein, The Return of Federal Judicial Discretion in Criminal Sentencing, 39 Val. U.L.Rev. 693, 714-15 (2005). 10 .For a survey of the divergent opinion among the courts of appeals, see. e.g., United States v. Crosby, 397 F.3d 103, 115 (2d Cir.2005) (refusing to "fashion any per se rules as to the reasonableness of every sentence within an applicable guideline or the unreasonableness of every sentence outsid h Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Winingear, 422 F.3d 1241,
holding that a sentence within a properly calculated guidelines range is presumptively reasonable holding sentence within properly calculated advisory guidelines range is presumptively reasonable holding that the defendants sentence was within the guidelines range and therefore presumptively reasonable holding that a sentence within the properly calculated guideline range is presumptively reasonable holding that sentences within the guideline range are presumptively reasonable