context: * Disparity: The district court failed to consider that the sentence it imposed, which constituted a 49% reduction from the Guidelines minimum, would create significant disparity between Trina and other defendants with similar criminal histories convicted of similar offenses.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 462 F.3d 378, 378
citation_a.parenthetical: holding that the district court's failure to give consideration to the sentencing disparity that would result was another reason the defendant's sentence was unreasonable
citation_a.sentence: See Guidry, 462 F.3d at 378 (holding that the district court’s failure to give consideration to the sentencing disparity that would result was another reason the defendant’s sentence was unreasonable); cf. Rita, 127 S.Ct. at 2464-65 (“[I]t is fair to assume that the Guidelines, insofar as practicable, reflect a rough approximation of sentences that might achieve § 3553(a)’s objectives.”).
citation_b.signal: cf.
citation_b.identifier: 127 S.Ct. 2464, 2464-65
citation_b.parenthetical: "[I]t is fair to assume that the Guidelines, insofar as practicable, reflect a rough approximation of sentences that might achieve SS 3553(a
citation_b.sentence: See Guidry, 462 F.3d at 378 (holding that the district court’s failure to give consideration to the sentencing disparity that would result was another reason the defendant’s sentence was unreasonable); cf. Rita, 127 S.Ct. at 2464-65 (“[I]t is fair to assume that the Guidelines, insofar as practicable, reflect a rough approximation of sentences that might achieve § 3553(a)’s objectives.”).