United States v. Pho

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that such \error[s] of law\ are reviewed de novo and render a sentence \per se unreasonable\
• recognizing that variances may not be based upon “general disagreement with broad-based policies enunciated by Congress or the Commission, as its agent.”
• holding that district court could not impose a sentence outside advisory Guideline range based solely on rejection of Guidelines' disparate treatment of crack and powder cocaine
• rejecting a variety of arguments against the ratio, including those based on the Sentencing Commission’s effort to ease the discrepancy
• holding, post-Booker, “a district court may exercise discretion in fashioning sentences — but that discretion was meant to operate only within the ambit of the individualized factors spelled out in section 3553(a),” and though broad, that discretion is not limitless
• “Although the district court’s approach does ameliorate the disparity in sentences for crack and powdered cocaine offenses ... Congress intended that particular disparity to exist, and federal courts are not free to second-guess that type of decision.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).