People v. Pescara

How courts have described this case

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

• rejecting a defendant’s substantive unreasonableness argument, based on a disparity between the defendant’s sentence and her co-defendant’s sentence, where the co-defendant pled guilty to one count, “while [the defendant] went to trial and was convicted of five counts”
• “There is no requirement that a district court consider or explain sentencing disparities among codefendants.”
• “[T]here is no requirement that a district court consider or explain sentencing 5 disparities among codefendants.”
• “[T]here is no requirement that a district court consider or explain sentencing disparities among codefendants.”
• “[T]here is no requirement that a district court consider or explain sentencing disparities among codefendants.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).