Background
Kenneth Cody Anderson pleaded guilty to possession with the intent to distribute methamphetamine in violation of Section twenty-one thousand five hundred forty-one of Title twenty-one of the United States Code. The district court imposed an one hundred eighty-month sentence within the applicable guidelines range. Anderson appealed, arguing the sentence was substantively unreasonable due to alleged disparate treatment between actual methamphetamine and a mixture containing methamphetamine.
The court’s reasoning
The court noted that the district court considered and rejected Anderson’s request for a lesser sentence. The appellate court found that Anderson failed to show the district court failed to account for a significant factor, gave significant weight to an improper factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in balancing the sentencing factors. The court held that Anderson’s disagreement with the propriety of the sentence was insufficient to rebut the presumption of reasonableness applicable to within-guidelines sentences.
What it means going forward
This decision reinforces the presumption of reasonableness for within-guidelines sentences and limits appellate challenges based on arguments regarding the disparity between pure substances and mixtures without showing a clear error in the district court’s balancing of factors.