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.