U.S. v. Freeman

Dist. Ct. did not err in sentencing defendant to below-guidelines, 192-month term of incarceration on crack-cocaine distribution and firearm charges, even though defendant argued that Dist Ct.: (1) failed to address his request to reject 18 to 1 crack to powder cocaine ratio in sentencing guidelines favor of 1 to 1 crack to powder ratio; (2) improperly speculated regarding uncharged criminal conduct attributed to defendant when addressing defendant’s argument that his criminal history was overstated due to presence of several offenses relating to driving on suspended license; and (3) improperly allowed its frustration with defendant’s litigation tactics to affect instant sentence. Under Rosales, 813 F.3d 634, Dist. Ct. was not required to address defendant’s categorical challenge to crack to powder ratio. Moreover, Dist. Ct. could properly note that defendant was involved in other conduct that formed basis of his traffic stops, when discounting defendant’s claim that his criminal history was overstated, and it was not irrational for Dist. Ct. to find that defendant’s criminal history was not overstated given nature and extent of serious drug and firearm sales that formed basis of charged offenses. Also, Dist. Ct.'s comments about defendant’s intelligence and calculated conduct during course of instant prosecution when dealing with his multiple counsel did not reflect any frustration with defendant’s litigation strategy, but rather pertained to need to protect others from defendant.