U.S. v. Pennington

Dist. Ct. did not err in sentencing defendant to one year plus one day term of incarceration on drug distribution charge. Dist. Ct. could properly compare defendant’s conduct to that of co-defendant, who received 7-month term of incarceration, where: (1) said individual held minimal role in drug distribution scheme; and (2) defendant’s participation in scheme’s drug sales was more extensive than co-defendant. Moreover, Dist. Ct. adequately considered all of section 3553(a) factors, as well as defendant’s mitigation evidence. Also, while Dist. Ct. orally misstated length of time of defendant’s participation in said scheme during sentencing hearing, no reversible error occurred, since: (1) Dist. Ct. corrected mistake in subsequent written order and indicated that difference between accurate and inaccurate information did not actually affect sentence; and (2) instant sentence was within applicable guidelines and defendant did not assert that sentence was substantively unreasonable.