U.S. v. Morris

Defendant was entitled to new sentencing hearing on charge of distribution of crack cocaine, even though Dist. Ct. imposed below-guidelines, 48-month term of incarceration. Dist. Ct. improperly made no mention of defendant’s principle arguments in seeking 18-month term of incarceration that included claim that: (1) instant guideline range was based mainly on fact that he had sold large quantity of counterfeit drug substances; and (2) 18 to 1 crack/powder disparity unfairly drove his sentencing range significantly higher. Moreover, said failure precluded Ct. of Appeals from determining whether Dist. Ct. had actually considered said arguments in fashioning defendant’s sentence, or whether instant sentence was reasonable.