Disparate sentences among co-defendants are permissible when disparities are explainable by facts on record
SENTENCING United States v. Haley, No. 07-5041, 529 F.3d 1308 (10th Cir. Jun 25, 2008)(N.D. Oklahoma). Appeal of sentence for conspiracy to distribute cocaine and distributing cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C); 846; 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C). HELD: District court did not abuse its discretion by refusing downward sentencing variance under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)’s sentencing factors, despite large disparity between defendant’s sentence and sentence of co-defendant whose conduct was arguably more culpable. District court may consider sentencing disparities between co-defendants, but disparate sentences are permitted when disparity is explainable by facts on record. Here, disparity is easily explained by two facts. First, defendant was repeat career offender whereas co-defendant was not. Thus, Defendant and co-defendant were not co-defendants with similar records who had been found guilty of similar conduct. Second, co-defendant was given downward adjustment in sentence for acceptance of responsibility. Co-defendant’s decision to plead guilty and accept responsibility and assist government does not create unwarranted disparity under § 3553(a)(6). Read the opinion here. |
Comments on "Disparate sentences among co-defendants are permissible when disparities are explainable by facts on record"
Hey nice post about this, and having your blog as an update reference,. Keeps my job much easier, thanks, keep it up....
LLC