Opinion ID: 202329
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Crack/Powder Disparity Under Guidelines

Text: Finally, appellant challenges his sentence on the ground that the degree of disparity in the guidelines' treatment of crack versus powder cocaine is unjustified and creates racial disparity in sentencing. He also argues that in his case, the disparity resulted in a sentence that was longer than necessary to achieve the goals of sentencing set forth in § 3553(a). As with the disparity argument regarding the career offender provision, the crack-to-powder ratio argument does not demonstrate that Burks' sentence is unreasonable. First, this court has held that a sentencing court is without authority to make a categorical, policy-based rejection of the 100:1 ratio. United States v. Pho, 433 F.3d 53, 62 (1st Cir. 2006). Second, in arriving at a belowguidelines sentence, the district court here specifically took into -5- account what the range would have been had the crack cocaine in this case been treated as powder. Independent of reasonableness, Burks also argues that the government was required to charge and prove that the substance involved in the charged offense was crack. However, Burks specifically admitted in his written plea agreement, and confirmed at the change-of-plea hearing, that the substance involved . . . is cocaine base, also known by the street name of crack cocaine. A defendant waives his right to challenge sentencing factors when he stipulates to the facts supporting the sentencing factor. United States v. Soto-Cruz, 449 F.3d 258, 262 (1st Cir. 2006). None of appellant's arguments provides grounds for finding that the sentence imposed following remand was unreasonably high. The factors that Burks faults the court for not considering were either considered by the court or not raised by Burks.2 The court gave a reasoned explanation for the sentence it imposed, and the 120-month sentence is a plausible outcome. JimenezBeltre, 440 F.3d at 519. The sentence is affirmed. 2 In addition to the arguments mentioned above, Burks argued that a lower sentence was warranted because he had been denied the additional one-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility on account of a change of counsel. However, the court specifically took that fact into account at re-sentencing. -6-