US v. Saez, No. 05-2001 affirms the District Court’s refusal to give him a below-guidelines sentence. He argues that “another judge in the same district court gave a shorter sentence to another defendant… who had been involved in the same criminal conduct as Saez.” Applying 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6), the court concludes that the District Court didn’t err, because rather than refusing to consider the disparity, it tried to, but it wasn’t given enough evidence by the defendant. The court notes that even though there are differences between these two defendants (relating to how one might have cooperated), the whole point of the guidelines is to ensure national uniformity, not co-defendant uniformity, and since “At the present time, the guidelines themselves are almost certainly the best indication of ordinary practice since most sentences are within the guidelines…” nothing is really amiss when the guidelines are used.