Will SCOTUS overturn or narrow Stinson deference to federal sentencing-guideline commentary?

If the Supreme Court, in Beaird v. United States, rules courts must independently interpret the Sentencing Guidelines or apply a narrower deference framework than Stinson when considering Guidelines commentary, then the market resolves to Yes. The Payout Criterion for the Contract encompasses the Expiration Values that the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled, in Beaird v. United States, that Stinson v. United States no longer correctly states the rule governing the deference courts must give commentary to the Sentencing Guidelines, including by requiring courts to exercise independent judgment or apply a materially narrower deference framework than Stinson’s rule that such commentary is authoritative unless it violates the Constitution or a federal statute, is inconsistent with the guideline, or is a plainly erroneous reading of the guideline, after Issuance and before August 1, 2028. The market resolves to No if the Court holds that Stinson still correctly states the governing rule. A vacatur or remand resolves to Yes only if accompanied by a merits ruling satisfying the foregoing condition; a dismissal, dismissal as improvidently granted, or remand without such a ruling resolves to No.