Commonwealth v. Acosta, M.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing that even though a district court may now disagree with the disparity in the crack co caine guidelines, mandatory minimum sentences imposed by statute must be followed
• holding that district courts may deviate from sentences under the advisory Guidelines based on policy disagreements
• recognizing that sen- tencing courts may vary from harsh Guidelines policies but are not required to do so
• holding that a district court may impose a downward variance under § 3553(a) based on its disagreement with the crack/powder sentencing disparity under the Guidelines
• holding that a “judge may consider the disparity between the Guidelines’ treat ment of crack and powder cocaine offenses” in deciding upon a sentence
• stating that “the District Court thus rested its sentence on the appropriate considerations and ‘committed no procedural error’ ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).