context: This presumption would not apply where a defendant challenges the substantive reasonableness on other grounds. In addition, this presumption of reasonableness would not be applied where the Government appeals that a district court's sentence is substantively unreasonable.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.parenthetical: apply ing no presumption when considering the substantive reasonableness of a sentence of probation when the Guidelines included a term of imprisonment
citation_a.sentence: See, e.g., Ahu Ali, 528 F.3d at 260-61 (applying the usual Gall analysis when considering the Government’s cross-appeal challenging the substantive reasonableness of a below-Guidelines term of imprisonment); see also United States v. Engle, 592 F.3d 495 (4th Cir.), cert. denied - U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 165, 178 L.Ed.2d 41 (2010), (apply ing no presumption when considering the substantive reasonableness of a sentence of probation when the Guidelines included a term of imprisonment).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 528 F.3d 260, 260-61
citation_b.parenthetical: applying the usual Gall analysis when considering the Government's cross-appeal challenging the substantive reasonableness of a below-Guidelines term of imprisonment
citation_b.sentence: See, e.g., Ahu Ali, 528 F.3d at 260-61 (applying the usual Gall analysis when considering the Government’s cross-appeal challenging the substantive reasonableness of a below-Guidelines term of imprisonment); see also United States v. Engle, 592 F.3d 495 (4th Cir.), cert. denied - U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 165, 178 L.Ed.2d 41 (2010), (apply ing no presumption when considering the substantive reasonableness of a sentence of probation when the Guidelines included a term of imprisonment).