Whether the federal sentencing court failed to properly consider and apply 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6) regarding unwarranted sentence disparities

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Before determining what sentence to impose on a convicted defendant, federal judges are required by 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) to consider a set of enumerated factors. A factor in § 3553(a)(6) is “the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct[.]” At his sentencing, the Petitioner argued that a sentence within the United States Sentencing Guidelines range would create a disparity with other cases where sentences outside the Guidelines range for the same offense were imposed. The district court stated that the other courts were creating disparity, and ultimately ruled that the withinGuideline sentence chosen by the court did not create a disparity. On appeal, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals held there was no error. The court concluded that the sentencing court’s viewpoint that other courts were creating disparity did not refuse to recognize a disparity. The appellate court further concluded that the sentencing court’s finding that cases cited by the Petitioner were dissimilar and distinguishable, followed by its ruling that no disparities existed, was not unreasonable. Question presented: whether the federal sentencing court failed to properly consider and apply § 3553(a)(6), which requires consideration of “the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct[,]” where the court concluded that a withinGuideline sentence for the Petitioner would not create a disparity with belowGuideline sentences in other cases involving the same offense.