in the absence of any indication to the contrary, United States v. Simmons, 587 F.3d 348, 364 (6th Cir.2009), at least where it had the opportunity to consider an argument in favor of such a rejection or its authority to do so was clearly •established at the time of sentencing. Cf. United States v. Curb, 625 F.3d 968, 973 (6th Cir.2010). Although a district court may choose to reject the Guidelines for policy reasons, if it declines to do so and imposes a within-Guidelines sentence, this court affords that sentence a presumption of reasonableness on appeal — as it does all within-Guidelines sentences — notwithstanding any policy arguments that could have favored a categorical variance below. See Simmons, 587 F.3d at 365-66; United States v. Kirchhof, 505 F.3d 409, 414 (6th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the question of whether a
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 sentence within guidelines range enjoys a presumption of reasonableness holding that a presumption of reasonableness applies to a sentence within the childpornography guidelines even though they were not promulgated by the sentencing commission pursuant to empirical data 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