Dist. Ct. did not err in sentencing defendant to 78-month term of incarceration on distribution of crack cocaine charges, even though defendant argued that Dist. Ct. improperly believed that it was bound to use 18-to-1 crack-to-powder cocaine ratio adopted in Fair Sentencing Act, and that instant sentence constituted unwarranted disparity with sentences given by other Dist. Ct. judges who used 1-to-1 crack-to powder cocaine ratio. Record failed to support defendant’s claim that Dist. Ct. misunderstood its discretion to use different crack-to-powder cocaine ratio. Moreover, fact that other Dist. Ct. judges used different ratio did not render instant sentence unreasonable where defendant’s sentence was otherwise within applicable advisory sentencing range, and where disparity arose only out of another Dist. Ct.’s policy disagreement with sentencing guideline.