Cooper, S. v. Brenntag Northeast, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that codefendants were not similarly situated where they had dif- ferent criminal history categories and were subject to different sen- tencing enhancements
• concluding that co-defendants with different criminal histories were not similarly situated
• noting that “it is clear that the Government can no longer base its refusal to move for a third-level reduction on a defendant’s refusal to waive appellate rights”
• rejecting disparity claim because “[d]efendant ha[d] not carried his burden to show specific facts establishing that any codefendants [were] similarly situated”
• rejecting disparity claim because “[d]efendant ha[d] not carried his burden to show specific facts establishing that any codefendants are similarly situated”
• rejecting disparity claim because “[d]efendant ha[d] not carried his burden to show specific facts establishing that any codefendants are similarly situated”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).