Why Was The Sentence Not Challenged For Substantive Reasonableness?

United States v. Ortiz, No. 06-4030-cr, 2007 WL 3230734 (2d Cir. Nov. 1, 2007)

An interesting appeal.  Ortiz, who pled guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of firearm, was sentenced to the statutory maximium of 10 years imprisonment -- more than double the high end of the 46 to 57 month range recommended by the advisory Guidelines.  Specifically, the district court ordered Ortiz to serve 5 years of his sentence concurrently with a previously imposed 15 year state sentence, and to serve the remaining 5 years consecutively to the state sentence.  On appeal, however, Ortiz did not challenge the substantive reasonableness of his very long sentence.  Rather, "his sole challenge on appeal is that the sentence was unreasonable insofar as it failed to account for the Guidelines' policy statements concerning the imposition of concurrent and consecutive sentences . . . ."  Yes, good grounds for appeal.  But why not also test the substantive reasonableness of the sentence itself?