particular guidelines lack any empirical basis and almost always result in a range near the statutory maximum, even for low level offenders. We have previously rejected similar arguments and held that courts should “give respectful attention to Congress’s view that child pornography crimes are serious offenses deserving serious sanctions.” United States v. Strieper, 666 F.3d 288, 296 (4th Cir.2012) (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted); see also United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 366-67 (5th Cir.2009) (recognizing that appellate courts are not required to discard presumption of reasonableness for sentences based on non-empirically-grounded Guidelines and applying presumption accordingly); United States v. McLaughlin, 760 F.3d 699, 707-08 (7th Cir.2014) (<HOLDING>). Here, the court balanced the statutory
holding a sentence is not based on the guidelines unless the plea agreement itself expressly uses a guidelines sentencing range to establish the term of imprisonment holding that defendant entitled to resentencing if the sentence imposed under the unconstitutional 1995 sentencing guidelines would constitute an impermissible departure sentence under the 1994 guidelines holding that sentencing court could consider whether the applicable guidelines were outdated and disproportionate but that imposing sentence based on the guidelines did not render sentence substantively unreasonable holding that a court could not agree to impose a sentence within the guidelines but then give a sentence that suspended all but an amount within the guidelines because a reasonable defendant would believe that within the guidelines included suspended time holding that the guidelines did not strip the sentencing court of its discretion to impose a concurrent sentence