By Daniel Wenner (July 12, 2017, 12:37 PM EDT) -- Defense attorneys have grown accustomed to certain realities about the sentencings after the landmark decisions of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007), Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (2007), and Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007). Each of those cases addresses the flexibility sentencing judges have when imposing sentence. They still must consider the guidelines, which remain the starting point for their analysis, but they can then impose any reasonable sentence in light of all of the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. §3553(a). See Gall, 552 U.S. at 46 ("[A] district judge must give serious consideration to the extent of any departure from the Guidelines and must explain his conclusion that an unusually lenient or an unusually harsh sentence is appropriate in a particular case with sufficient justifications."). Additionally, courts may not presume that a sentence outside the applicable guidelines range is unreasonable, even though they may presume that a sentence within the guidelines range is reasonable. Id. at 47. By and large, then, most sentences within the particular guidelines range would be considered reasonable, but outside that range, it's harder to say....