The following excerpt is from Roby v. U.S., 933 F.2d 1015 (9th Cir. 1990):
Id. at 353 (citations omitted). In United States v. Endicott, 803 F.2d 506 (9th Cir.1986), the appellant was sentenced to two years in jail plus three years probation. A codefendant, who the appellant contended was more culpable than he, was sentenced to six months in jail plus five years probation. The appellant argued in a direct appeal from his conviction that this disparate sentencing was an abuse of discretion. We disagreed stating,
"a disparity in the sentences imposed upon codefendants does not indicate that the sentencing judge has abused his discretion or that review is required." United States v. Garrett, 680 F.2d 650, 652 (9th Cir.1982). A sentence imposed by a federal district judge, if within statutory limits, is generally not subject to review.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.